Artillery - do you want it?

[DviddLeff]

The devs have mentioned in the past that they are not intending on having long range indirect fire in the game. I think it adds massively to the tactics that can be used, and would be a fantastic addition if implemented correctly.

In the original all we had was the flail, which had a shallow angle of fire and was only available when a vehicle mod/cave lock was on. It also had various problems where it was deployed on slopes and could then fire directly on enemies.

Now dedicated artillery vehicles and fortification, and infantry crewed mortars could be great for providing support fire and suppress enemies as forces advance, especially when used with spotters

So, what do you think?

[Redshift]

being splattered by the flail was frustrating, and i've very rarly seen it actually being useful.

I don't really like weapons that destroy you without any real chance to fight back

[DviddLeff]

Yeah the anti artillery reasoning can be:


Not very fun to sit back and just click a button in the hopes that you may hit something useful
Not fun getting hit by something you cant see

[basti]

Artillery can be fun, but it needs to be done right. The flail was flawed in several ways.
You never really had a chance to predict the shots or evade them. You saw them when they still had a few secs of way to go, and suddenly you died by it, seeing the shot warping. That needs to be gone.
The damage was way to high, even with the long range version (dont even mention the previos version where even short range damage was high). The AOE effect needs to be much smaller, and the damage as well. Artillery should be more like an low damage area bombardment.


Anyway, i want artierlly, because i like that kind of stuff. Adds a lot of possibilitys. :)

[I SandRock]

No. I don't like indirect combat. I'd almost go as far as to say no weapons that can kill you without LoS. Almost ;)

[SKYeXile]

Oh yea it adds heaps of tactics to the game...anyway BBL...going AFK with my fire button taped down pointed at a doorway, cya in 100 kills.

[Captain B]

Depends how it's implemented. We know there will be mortar upgrades for tanks as secondary guns. How effective it will be is unclear at the moment. Will it be AV or AI or both? Will it have limited storage for its special ammunition, limiting how often it can fire before having to drive back to base to refill?

I think indirect fire can be useful, but the flail was pretty ridiculous, and rather powerful.

[basti]

Oh yea it adds heaps of tactics to the game...anyway BBL...going AFK with my fire button taped down pointed at a doorway, cya in 100 kills.

Aye, thats a problem. Pinpoint the location of something that the enemy will have to run into (Veh bay anyone), open autofire, win. Recoil would fix that, or force artillery to have a target locked by a additional guy (cloaker with lazer beam), or you just cant fire precicly at all, means without the lazer beam your shots would go all over the place.

[waldizzo]

I'd be okay with artillery if it required more than one person to operate. For example, the gun would not fire unless someone else has painted the target area. Also it would have to deploy on somewhat level ground, no slopes.

[Aractain]

The problem is the kill focused systems of games make indirect or support weaponary either terrible or too powerful.

Adding in a 'suppresion' like system and tieing in XP systems etc to that allows you do add in artillery that works properly. Actively helping your friendly troops on the ground by interfering with the enemy - not random instant kills.

[FIREk]

I'm all for artillery, because it adds another layer of depth and complexity to combat.

However, it would have to be gimped to shit in terms of accuracy (as in: not pinpoint), and usage/spawning limitations. I'm thinking really crazy stuff like only being able to spawn one every hour.

The idea is that artillery support should be a luxury, not the norm, therefore it shouldn't be an expendable remote kill generator that can be easily replaced.

If my base is being shelled by a gun way behind enemy lines, it will take a lot of effort on my faction's end to get past the shorter-range attackers, and finally eliminate the artillery. I imagine this wouldn't be an easy task, therefore it would simply be unfair if the enemy could just roll out a new artillery piece in minutes.

Artillery should be a rare and precious commodity, and require at least some protection in order to operate efficiently.

[Senyu]

Making a morter like weapon for infantry I think wouldn't be the bad. Signifigantly reduced ranged compared to the flail but still farther potentially than standard assualt weapons. And the area of effect should smaller than flail but can still hit 3-5 people if they are clustered. They would have to be guessed at for aiming but still can receive the laser pointer boost to help guide to your target. I can imagine this would be incrediably usefull for say trying to morter enemys on walls behind cover. Having an infil sneak in and laser point the spot allowing you to hit those couple guys hiding in cover.


For vehicles, well they would have to remain still long enough but damage should be around AV weapon damage and slightly more/or less depending on feedback. Is it easy to get kills with this thing? No. Can it help tactically in some situations? Yes. Implemented correctly it should be in the game. And you should be able to die easy while using since your just a sitting target

[Mirror]

No for me as it promotes boring game play.

[Draep]

No for me as it promotes boring game play.
Nobody would force you to use it. To fix the problems of artillery being unaccessible, they could simply shorten the range and allow for a much higher angle of fire, making it harder to aim but making the piece make more sense.

Artillery would give ground infantry the ability to saturate an area with shellfire before moving to attack, if they restricted who could see the painted area to squad/platoon/outfit members, it would limit uncontrollable spam.

Artillery yes please

[NewSith]

they could simply shorten the range and allow for a much higher angle of fire

In fact that is how arty SHOULD work. In PS flail was just a long range lightning.

[Bags]

Flail was one of the most unfun things in planetside.

[Geist]

I think Artillery would be excellent, the flail was poorly implemented, but making it so you can't use it unless someone is lazing the target, and making the laze pointer relatively short range, while making the laser clearly visible will solve a lot of the problems.

[DviddLeff]

Great responses all, keep voting!

The problems with the Flail were many; I think that having a higher angle of fire, and having a shorter overall range would be great so that they have to be deployed around sniper range; still part of that "local" battle zone but not far enough away that you can have them shooting from facility to facility.

[Draep]

Great responses all, keep voting!

The problems with the Flail were many; I think that having a higher angle of fire, and having a shorter overall range would be great so that they have to be deployed around sniper range; still part of that "local" battle zone but not far enough away that you can have them shooting from facility to facility.

Yep, i think we pretty much solved this thread. Devs?

[Lonehunter]

I only want it as a 2 man team, spotter and shooter.

[BorisBlade]

The damage and aoe effect was fine on the flail, i has to be high and decent aoe, you arent exactly lining up crosshairs. The rate of fire tho needs to be lowered. So when you see a shot go off you have a chance to get out and get away before the next lands. When it hits you get some nasty damage but the fire rate is low enough to allow for avoiding it between shots. It does need to have a MUCH larger deadzone, maybe the shell doesnt activate til it reaches a certain distance away. But many times ive came up on a flail on a hill to just have it hit me from 50 yds or less away, thats absurd for artillery. Its weakness to anything that comes in range is its downside and its lower accuracy also keeps it balanced, it needs support. Balance like this allows it to stay powerful at range.

Kind of like the phoenix, we dont want that. Terrible weapon that allows the user to stay safely hidden where you cant fight back. A flail cant track and follow you, nor does it have the accuracy, fairly easy to avoid flail fire 97% of the time. A phoenix however is guided, and will constantly hit you, and doesnt need the open space and can be hidden much more easily, such as inside a building and firing out a door or window. In short, flail is fine if its done right and a cool addition. Just dont go the route of the phoenix, which is a prime example of a bad gameply mechanic.

[I SandRock]

You already have the Liberator to fill this role and it requires a direct LoS.

[Captain1nsaneo]

Libs are not flails. To use them well requires very different skill sets. I love libs and I love flails. Some of the more awesome memories in my mind are when we managed to get a whole squad either flailing or lazing. Lazing is another role for cloakers and requires the skill to not be seen or shot while planting the laze. The flail needs to know the terrain so that his shots won't be blocked when they come down. There's communication that needs to happen for it to be effective and without support you're a sitting target for air.

If you're angry at flails there's probably two reasons:
1: They were used short range to camp doors.
2: They camp vehicle pads.

Either one was infuriating so if those are resolved you probably will learn to accept them, just like how the rest of us have had to live with reavers, which take only a cert point more but can be pulled anywhere. Some of us REALLY like setting up and spotting for artillery, it's just that so few games allow for it.

[DviddLeff]

Vehicle pad and door camping with artillery can be resolved by putting covers over the areas; either solid objects or shields.

Artillery should have distinctive sounds before it hits, to give troops a bit more warning to take cover; the flail had the visual effect, but the sound was lacking somewhat.

[I SandRock]

Hardly anyone ever used flails. I can't remember if i ever got killed by one. They serve no real purpose. Effective artillery will make sieging a base too easy because there's no save spot for infantry when everyone pulls out their artillery. Ineffective artillery is useless.

But most of all. They could also spend that time creating another buggy, tank, aircraft, sea-vehicles etc. that a lot more people would use and enjoy rather than a few people who's idea of fun is to sit on a deserted hilltop shooting shells into the air hitting random people they can't even see. Not to mention it's not fun to anyone to get killed by random shelling .......................... in my humble opinion :p

[NewSith]

but the sound was lacking somewhat.

The sound was lacking echoing. Normally you can hear heavy shots from miles away. So you hear it and think: "Oh, so there's an artillery firing and it can hit me. I better hide."

In PS1 it is more like: "Oh so ther... *BOOM*". Except for minimap projectile marking there was no way to know.

[HELLFISH88]

Flail was one of the most unfun things in planetside.


Flail was one of the most fun things in planetside.


People hated the Flail because it work. Artillery is known as "The King of Battle" for a reason. Compared to vehicles such as Tanks or even orbital strikes the flail got very little use. I will admit that parking flails in front of doors was a not fun and an obvious threat to balance but I thought we solved that issue with the Damage change. Damage done is measured by how long the projectile/ Giant plasma ball is n flight. Flails were oh so very unique. You couldn't even access them without a cavern Mod. That alone is a large enough counter balance to it power. Nothing else quite like the flail has ever existed in an MMO and it added even more depth to Planetside's combined arms environment

I have to play devils advocate but I will die a little inside if the flail isn't in planetside 2. You hear that T-Ray. Die inside D:

[SgtMAD]

what you do is make artillery a regular veh cert,eliminate any need for mods(which we have been told aren't in the game)and give artillery the ability for rapid counter battery like a map symbol or some other designator that gives them the ability to counter battery any artillery strike,that ends camping because you are going to have to "shoot and scoot" or die.

the ability to call in accurate artillery would be a useful addition as long as it isn't like the damn flail

[Zulthus]

Do something about the door camping and V-Pad camping and I won't care. But the shot should take at least 1000m to prime before it hits. That's artillery. Camping a base from a near hill isn't artillery, that's annoying and useless.

[Redshift]

Flail was one of the most fun things in planetside.



The flail just frustrated people, the person in the flail may as well been asleep on the mousebutton, the people getting flailed either randomly dropped dead or just had to walk the long way around a base to avoid the thing the flail was hitting. i think i only saw a spotter on a flail 2-3 times in the whole time it existed. It didn't do anything other than get on peoples nerves.

[BUGGER]

Perhaps the Flail was a pain in the ass when it kept you in a tower, but it was the most satisfying thing to kill via Reaver/tank.....or in one funny case I've seen, another flail. :lol:

[xSlideShow]

Perhaps the Flail was a pain in the ass when it kept you in a tower, but it was the most satisfying thing to kill via Reaver/tank.....or in one funny case I've seen, another flail. :lol:

Or a phantasm = way funnier imo.

[Raymac]

I really liked the concept of the Flail, and was excited when it first entered the game. But then in practice, it was just stupid and annoying. I think there is a way for them to improve indirect fire. Not sure how, but I'm sure there is a way.

[Sirisian]

I suggested an idea (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37108) a while back to turn artillery into a direct fired squad based system. I think it fixes most of the things that weren't fun with the flail.

Personally I love seeing flail rounds in the sky. Seeing an artillery with a trail while you're flying and stuff would be awesome. Makes the battles seem huge.

[Talek Krell]

I'm fairly ambivalent about artillery. If I were to design it I'd say artillery should be split into two groups. Short range and long range.

Shorter ranged artillery like mortar pits could be fairly accurate, but require a bit of setup, possibly an engineering deployable like the MG. They'd also be within striking distance of their enemies so using them would be high risk/high reward.

Longer ranged artillery would have to compensate for the relative safety of use by being an inaccurate suppression weapon. The thread Sirisian mentioned would work pretty well in terms of eliminating driver boredom. In order to keep them from becoming too common I would give them a long firing cooldown, limit them to one per squad, and make them interchangeable with other equally valuable options.

[Traak]

No artillery.

[Xyntech]

No artillery.

Then in that case, I'm all for artillery!

Just kidding ;)

I'm against something like the Flail and I'm more ambivalent about artillery in general.

If it can add something valuable to the overall gameplay experience, awesome. Otherwise, let's devote attention to more valuable vehicle ideas.

As far as the poll, I'd have to say no. I don't really want it. I'm just not very vehemently opposed to it either.

[Traak]

Well, how about artillery that has to be emplaced, dug in, with a level patch of ground, and can't move on its own, but has to be undeployed, packed up, and moved?

No one can sit inside it. Everyone is softie-exterior-vulnerable who mans it. And this needs a gunner, radio man, and traversing crew, maybe.

Make it like real field artillery, not the Flail, with the armor of a tank and one-man piloted.

I think long, as in, REALLY long range artillery is fun. When it is just like real life, requiring a lot of teamwork to set up, camouflage, fire, and feed.

But the flail? One-man uber-wagon from hell that can walk on water?

Nah.

And, make aiming it take WORK. You call in adjustments. No laser spotters. No WP junk. "Adjust fire 50 yards further, ten yards left" so people have to actually think to use it.

Not just point and click. Nope. You have to adjust dials for elevation and traverse.

Wind conditions change, atmospheric conditions change. Air density changes at night.

I could get into this.

Receiving end: incoming artillery is getting closer and closer. We can hear the shockwave of the shells on the way. What do we do to counter it? Go hunt down the emplacement. The emplacement has a destructible weapon, softies, not a guy in an over-armored "floating artillery BFR without legs"

It would have balance. Under those conditions, I could see it being viable. Ammunition is dropped off in crates, also capable of being blown up and killing the crew.

I think this would be a fun addition to the game. Knowing I could sneak out and start killing the artillery crew would be satisfying. In fact, with proper balance, the battle could swiftly shift from the target zone to the artillery emplacement. So the artillery emplacement would have to be defended.

Oh, and you can't set up artillery in any SOI. Not tower, base, or near a warpgate, so it would be less likely to be the game-stagnating Flail drinking in endless ammo and repairs at a silo, or the crews being able to have endless supplies sitting inside a nearby WG dome, where everyone could run if any opposition came, starting another WG standoff/yawnfest. Big dish of no thanks. A whole buffet of "no thanks." If you want to use artillery, you can't just sit your butt in a base and guzzle the XP. This is about combat, not sit-and-click.

This is a first-person shooter. Not a third-person "tape the button down and go to the kitchen for a snack" XP fountain.

[Arkaiden]

Am I the only one who used the flail as an anti-BFR and GG platform?

'Cause there was nothing more fun than tagging a GG with a flail and making the pilot scram as fast as possible away.

That and knocking out reavers and mossies that thought you were an easy kill.

[Death2All]

Artillery makes for boring, stale gameplay.

The occasional called in (perhaps commander ability) artillery barrage or airstrike wouldn't be too bad. But giving players the means to sit far back from the battlefield and spam round after round of artillery shells is just stupid.

[Traak]

But giving players the means to sit far back from the battlefield and spam round after round of artillery shells is just stupid.

So, you must be against one-shot-kills for snipers, too.

[Captain1nsaneo]

Am I the only one who used the flail as an anti-BFR and GG platform?

'Cause there was nothing more fun than tagging a GG with a flail and making the pilot scram as fast as possible away.

That and knocking out reavers and mossies that thought you were an easy kill.

Never used it specifically for that but a few reavers who held too still and a couple of libs earned a respawn. My favorite memory of solo use though was when I got into an artillery duel with another flail that was outside of vision on old Oshur. I don't know who was in the other flail but by the time I killed him he had landed a round or two on me as well.

Artillery duels, WHAT OTHER GAME HAS THAT?

[Death2All]

So, you must be against one-shot-kills for snipers, too.

Given the scope of a game like Planetside, yes. I'm very against them.

Guess I'm weird for disliking game elements that makes the game boring and dull for others. Woe is me.

[Traak]

Yeah, I'm against OSK's for snipers, too. I can see artillery being okay, if it was treated right. But I don't see PS being worse if it isn't there.

[I SandRock]

I just feel that either Artillery is given so many handicaps hardly anyone will use it, it's useless, or it's OP and there's no good way to make it.

When Artillery isn't made so shit it's useless, it means it's effective. And effective artillery means you can destroy enemies from a large distance. Which to me is too overpowered. So when you start adding handicaps to it so that you need a whole squad to operate it and you can only use it once every year, it means hardly anyone will ever use it and time would be better spend on other vehicles that everyone enjoys using and are easier to balance.
When you can't kill enemies from a large distance, it means it'll be (to me) pretty useless and will only serve a niche audience. Again, better spend that development time on a vehicle everyone can enjoy.

None of the suggestions in this thread really make Artillery stand out as a thing that could be made to work and be worth it. Most people who are FOR it are coming up with all sorts of ways to limit widespread use or make it very nerfed. The idea of artillery is nice yeah but I don't think it can be made to work well. It's just a fantasy, like BFRs. It's awesome to be the one controlling a killing machine mech but it can't be made to work very balanced.

[NivexQ]

There should absolutely be artillery. This is a war game, there is artillery in war. Artillery is a strategic obstacle that you need to work around. Saying you don't like it isn't a reason it shouldn't be in the game. FYI the Flail was terrible artillery. It could be done much better. Artillery is not supposed to be a derpbeam that you can spam in one spot over and over again and instakill anything within 20 feet.

[Aractain]

I just feel that either Artillery is given so many handicaps hardly anyone will use it, it's useless, or it's OP and there's no good way to make it.

When Artillery isn't made so shit it's useless, it means it's effective. And effective artillery means you can destroy enemies from a large distance. Which to me is too overpowered. So when you start adding handicaps to it so that you need a whole squad to operate it and you can only use it once every year, it means hardly anyone will ever use it and time would be better spend on other vehicles that everyone enjoys using and are easier to balance.
When you can't kill enemies from a large distance, it means it'll be (to me) pretty useless and will only serve a niche audience. Again, better spend that development time on a vehicle everyone can enjoy.

None of the suggestions in this thread really make Artillery stand out as a thing that could be made to work and be worth it. Most people who are FOR it are coming up with all sorts of ways to limit widespread use or make it very nerfed. The idea of artillery is nice yeah but I don't think it can be made to work well. It's just a fantasy, like BFRs. It's awesome to be the one controlling a killing machine mech but it can't be made to work very balanced.

I think the idea of a rocket artillery peice firing off a salvo at a enemy position bluring thier vision, giving them that ringing sound and taking out thier shields is pretty effective. Yeah you don't get many (or any) kills but every person that would be killed from there would give you an artillery assist which should be XP from kill plus suppresion bonuses (see BF3 for excellent implementation of this).

The whole idea is to support your teammates rather than solo killwhore (if you want to do that I want you on the front line providing prime content for the rest of the player base).

[Peacemaker]

I'd love to see artillary in PS2. Conventional rounds to be sure. No energy blasting stuff. RoF would be low (10-20 seconds to reload). The arc should be decent and the range should be about 2/3rds the flails range. Now really I think the best way to do this would be to make it a deployable structure.

Akin to how we might get to make a tower, instead of a vehicle an artillary base would be excelent. Skill trees for the structure would add ammo, add defensive machinegun emplacements, and maybe some light AA. Other skills might include counter battery fire detection, and mapped impact points. The key to this structure is keeping the ammo stocks up. A transport of somekind with no weapons would have to supply it. The structure would have to be deployed away from other structures.

The artillary them selfs would have a seperate skill tree, decreasing the RoF, increasing damage, Increasing movement speed (and by movement I mean aiming, which would be very slow), and finally ammo types. Different ammo types would be for different things, default HE would do decent damage vs infantry and medium damage to armored vehicles. Infantry can take 2 close hits (60ish HP damage). Then you could have laser tracking rounds that would home in on a laser designated target and do less damage to infantry and higher damage vs vehicles. Finally a frag round would decrease overall damage vs infantry, do low damage or none to vehicles but the AOE would be high.

I'd also like to see a mortar that could be carried by two men for light work. Same as MGs and deployable anti tank weapons.

[Xyntech]

Okay, here is my thoughts on a balanced, yet fun and effective artillery solution. It's a bit of an amalgamation of some of the other ideas in this thread.


1) Artillery is driven to a location and deployed like a PS1 AMS, but similar to an AMS, there is no value to staying inside the vehicle after deploying it, aside from being able to quickly undeploy and drive away. Nobody inside the vehicle can fire the artillery.

2) The only way to fire the artillery is to paint a target with a laser. The artillery piece automatically rotates, aims and fires on any location painted by the laser. If needed, there could be an alternate fire mode on the targeting laser that tells the artillery when to fire, while painting a spot only aims the gun. No matter what, the artillery can only continue to fire as long as a target remains painted.

3) The artillery piece has a much sharper arc of fire, allowing it to only fire at relatively shorter ranges. The maximum range should probably be somewhere between 300m and 600m, maybe even a little longer depending on how playtests go. This should limit the ability to fire from one base onto another.

4) The artillery piece shouldn't have paper thin armor, but it should be significantly lighter armor than a tank. Moreover, it should have a weak spot that can easily destroy the entire artillery piece with a single well placed explosive charge, or if infiltrators in PS2 don't have access to explosive packs, infiltrators should be given some other method that they can use to sneak in and rapidly destroy the artillery.

5) I think the only way to keep the numbers of artillery in check would be to make them drive somewhat slowly and be unable to be transported by a galaxy or any other aircraft. That, along with being relatively short range and being easily destroyed, should keep them from overwhelming the battlefield. Pulling 20 artillery cannons should be no more effective than pulling 20 of any other vehicle.


What you would end up with would be a means of giving an infantryman a heavy support weapon without giving them an overpowered hand held gun. As long as it took at least a few seconds between painting the target and the shot hitting the target, it should be relatively balanced in power.

Kills could be split between the person painting the target and the person who owns the artillery vehicle, assuming they aren't the same person. The person driving the vehicle could either choose to deploy defenses around the artillery and try to protect it while someone else paints targets, or they could leave the artillery undefended (or have other team mates defend it) and go paint the targets themselves.

You could also put a limit where only one laser painter could be connected to each artillery piece at a time, so that you had to go to the artillery and grab another laser painter if the guy carrying the first one died. This would make the firing effectiveness of the artillery doubly vulnerable, as you could either find and kill the guy painting the targets, or find and destroy the artillery piece. The artillery would always be relatively nearby to it's target and easy to find if it has trails behind it's shots, while the infantryman would always have to be in a line of site with whatever they were targeting.

So how would the fun factor rate for everyone involved?

Attackers:
+ ) It would be fun to find a good place to deploy the artillery.
+ ) It would be fun to sneak around or travel with a squad and paint targets for the artillery to destroy and get some kills.
- ) It would not be fun to drive the slow moving artillery around and get blown up easily.
- ) It would not be fun to have to go and grab another laser painter from the artillery piece after you die.

Defenders:
+ ) It would be fun for players to watch out for and prioritize the killing of people who are trying to paint a target.
+ ) It would be fun to search for and destroy the nearby and lightly armored artillery pieces.
- ) It would not be fun to get blown up by artillery fire raining down from the sky.
- ) It sucks enough that it deserves two mentions, dying from artillery really sucks.


The people firing the artillery would have to be actively engaged in the game, as opposed to the current method of auto-fire and forget. The people defending against the artillery would have it a lot easier to retaliate against the artillery and silence it, in multiple ways.

Obviously if you put some AA and other heavy defenses around the artillery, it would become a lot harder to destroy, however that would require a lot of people to properly defend it, so that kind of team work and concentrated effort should be rewarded. Moreover, the person painting the targets could still be easily targeted by snipers and other forces, preventing a heavily defended artillery from firing with impunity. Also, even with the best defenses available, the artillery would still be relatively close to whatever it was firing at, meaning that even the best of defenses will have trouble holding off waves of attackers.

Edit: Additionally, you could force the laser to be painting a spot for at least a couple seconds before it would fire/allow you to fire the artillery. This would prevent aiming the artillery ahead of time and then only popping out and painting the target for a split second before ducking behind cover.

Or maybe the round could be less accurate the shorter the time you paint the target. Like if you only paint it long enough to get the shot fired, it will be very inaccurate, while painting it for half the time will make it hit somewhat close to the target and painting it until the round actually impacts will make it %100 accurate.

I also like Peacemaker's ideas about different types of artillery round for different types of targets and effects.

[Aractain]

The concept of lazing a target being the only way to fire is just dumb. It means it will see very little use.

The player friendly way to do such is a map targeting standard mode with pretty terrible accuracy - its not for pointpoint kills remember - its to put pressure on enemy positions.

Then with a lazed target you can have the artillery being more accurate. More specifically you would have a squad leader benifit that would call in support attack on a location, for artillery that would mean an auto lockon with double or whatever the accuracy.

This genenrates unorganized player to player content and improves the war imersion/fun by actually having your "OS" type weaponary being fired by real players. If that is the ONLY method to fire it, there wont BE any artillery for squad leaders to call on.

Pretty basic stuff. Alone its fun and cool, not too powerful but useful. Combined with a certed squad leader its deadly accurate fire. Then ofcourse you can have unlocks for enemy artillery fire detection with pops up a waypoint for counterbattery fire etc etc.

The IMPERITIVE of artillery implementation is that it cannot make infantry/ground fights annoying like the flail.

[MgFalcon]

I would love to see a mortar team, get like 2-3 peeps to set up and shoot some short-distance mortars off would be nice!

[Xyntech]

The concept of lazing a target being the only way to fire is just dumb. It means it will see very little use.

The player friendly way to do such is a map targeting standard mode with pretty terrible accuracy - its not for pointpoint kills remember - its to put pressure on enemy positions.

Then with a lazed target you can have the artillery being more accurate. More specifically you would have a squad leader benifit that would call in support attack on a location, for artillery that would mean an auto lockon with double or whatever the accuracy.

This genenrates unorganized player to player content and improves the war imersion/fun by actually having your "OS" type weaponary being fired by real players. If that is the ONLY method to fire it, there wont BE any artillery for squad leaders to call on.

Pretty basic stuff. Alone its fun and cool, not too powerful but useful. Combined with a certed squad leader its deadly accurate fire. Then ofcourse you can have unlocks for enemy artillery fire detection with pops up a waypoint for counterbattery fire etc etc.

The IMPERITIVE of artillery implementation is that it cannot make infantry/ground fights annoying like the flail.

I don't think you can have engaging gameplay that involes sitting in a stationary platform firing at targets that you can't even see.

How about having two methods of firing the artillery.

The first method is painting the target in the manner I suggested previously. Anyone can pull and use the laser painter from the artillery as long as the driver allows them access.

The second would use a command tool and only be available to properly trained commanders. They would pull up a map view and select a spot to barrage and the artillery would automatically fire in that general area, with extremely low accuracy. The commander wouldn't need a line of site and could keep a somewhat sizable area suppressed.

I just don't see the value in sitting around firing at something you cant see. As far as being a supportive role, you would be doing pretty much the same thing as an AMS driver in PS1 as far as driving the artillery to the spot and deploying it.


I think the artillery would absolutely still be used. Tank camping your tower? Have a team mate drive an artillery cannon up behind a hard to reach nearby mountain and make the tank seriously consider getting out of dodge. Want to barrage a vehicle pad? No problem, but if you hope to kill everything comming off of it, you had better have somebody painting it.

Keep the artillery hidden in a safe nearby location and save it for the right moment. Spot a landed Galaxy? Dead. Spot a cluster of enemies trying to hide from you behind some cover? Dead.

Are there a bunch of snipers giving you trouble up on that ridge? Have the commander barrage the entire area. Maybe it won't kill them all right away, but they are going to have to seriously consider finding another spot.

[Grimster]

I would love to see artillery. To me it is a vital part of the warfare. :)

Rarely used it myself but I loved the suspense of your area getting flailed and yes sometimes it was annoying but I would love too see artillery in some way in a expansion.

[Warruz]

i voted yes but in a limited capacity , im thinking more in the mortar / howitzer capacity .

[Naeadil]

I don't really like weapons that destroy you without any real chance to fight back
Kinda like every gun in modern FPS games that have too fast TTK

[dm Akolyte]

I think any indirect fire weapons should require some sort of spotter to fire.

So to keep lobbing shots at the vehicle pad, you'd need a person to keep lazing it.

[Baron]

I like the idea of Artillery, implemented in a balanced/fun way, because it creates more jobs. Annoyed at dying from something you can't see? Tired of your courtyard being shelled into oblivion?

It's called air cav ...bomber ...infiltrator...etc...

A job has been created to take out the enemy's artillery! Fun for all

[Bags]

It's called air cav ...bomber ...infiltrator...etc...

A job has been created to take out the enemy's artillery! Fun for all

Except for those of us who don't like planes and artillery.

[Xyntech]

Artillery doesn't even have to be OSOK. As long as it is relatively short range, I don't see what it would take away from a game

You say you don't like planes Bags, but what about infiltrators? What about tanks? AV infantry even. Those could be used to take out an artillery piece, especially if it had to stay close to where it was attacking.

I think that the worst parts of artillery are firstly, the difficulty in retaliating against them and secondly, the fact that they can select a target and do nothing but spam the same place for an hour. I feel like my suggestions, even if not perfect, would go a long way towards getting rid of the most negative aspects of artillery, while still allowing them to be effective pieces of equipment on the battlefield.

I'd say that variety is generally a good thing. The more unique roles that the game provides and fills, the better. Isn't that part of the debate over mechs? The question of what role they would fill? Artillery certainly has a role to fill, as long as it is implemented better than in PS1.

The only real downside to variety is if it shits on somebodies ability to enjoy the game. As long as there is room to have fun while using the artillery (more fun than spamming the same spot for hours, killwhores aside), while also having room to enjoy fighting against the artillery, I'd say it would be as balanced on the fun scale as anything else in the game.

A few well placed AA units can really ruin my day as a pilot. Who cares? I can always grab a Lancer or hop in a tank and give them some payback.

Is a well balanced artillery really going to be that big of an annoyance? It may not be everyones favorite thing to use, but destroying an artillery piece has got to be fun. Maybe it sucks to die to them, but is it any better to die to a tank shell? Again, I'm not talking about an artillery piece that's half a continent away, with a couple hundred tons of armor keeping it safe. I'm talking about something that's within a few hundred meters of you, that could easily be wiped out in short order. Again, maybe it can't even kill you in one shot, something that tanks are almost certain going to still be able to do in PS2.

I'm speaking more in the abstract on this, since I'm not particularly itching for artillery to be high on the 3 year plan, but would it really be so bad if done right? Would we really want to just keep stripping things away from PS1 instead of trying to do them right this time?

[xSlideShow]

I don't think you can have engaging gameplay that involes sitting in a stationary platform firing at targets that you can't even see.

How about having two methods of firing the artillery.

The first method is painting the target in the manner I suggested previously. Anyone can pull and use the laser painter from the artillery as long as the driver allows them access.

The second would use a command tool and only be available to properly trained commanders. They would pull up a map view and select a spot to barrage and the artillery would automatically fire in that general area, with extremely low accuracy. The commander wouldn't need a line of site and could keep a somewhat sizable area suppressed.

I just don't see the value in sitting around firing at something you cant see. As far as being a supportive role, you would be doing pretty much the same thing as an AMS driver in PS1 as far as driving the artillery to the spot and deploying it.


I think the artillery would absolutely still be used. Tank camping your tower? Have a team mate drive an artillery cannon up behind a hard to reach nearby mountain and make the tank seriously consider getting out of dodge. Want to barrage a vehicle pad? No problem, but if you hope to kill everything comming off of it, you had better have somebody painting it.

Keep the artillery hidden in a safe nearby location and save it for the right moment. Spot a landed Galaxy? Dead. Spot a cluster of enemies trying to hide from you behind some cover? Dead.

Are there a bunch of snipers giving you trouble up on that ridge? Have the commander barrage the entire area. Maybe it won't kill them all right away, but they are going to have to seriously consider finding another spot.

^^ I actually like this idea. Give the gun a CD for firing so you can't spam it.

[Metalsheep]

Instead of giving the player the ability to pull and man an artillary vehicle, why not have a new Base or Tower type? Artillary Bases/Towers could have a large Howitzer gun on the top of the base, like an Interlinks radar dish. It can only be fired periodically by commanders that have earned it in their skill trees. When it is fired, you can hear it from long, loooong distances away. (Soft, muffled sounds from extream distance, loud, thunderous shots if your IN the base.) Giving the audio cue to anyone that artillary is being fired. This also gives the base, and the battlefield some life, hearing the shots being fired every so often.

At first i was thinking of only having 1 artillary base per cont, to make it hotly contested, but then it wouldnt be fair on the other two sides. So possibly 3, at minimum 2.

It would also take resources to fire the artillary. (acts like Ammo) And it will be on a decent cooldown per commander. Not nearly as long as an OS, but also not as devestating. It could be useful to clear out small clusters of troops, embedded or fortified defenses. Bunkers, turrets, ect. Or simple area denial.

And possibly the Artillary gun on top of the base could be destroyed by lots, and LOTS of fire. A solo reaver shouldnt be able to swoop in to a base and just nuke its gun to be a jerk. It will take a large effort if you want to just disable the gun with sheer firepower. And since its artillay, the gun cannot hit within the SOI(HEXs) of its own base. And will be called in similarly to the OS. Can only select a spot within a certain distance of the commander.

[Firefly]

I think the artillery belongs in PS2. I've played a few games that featured artillery and it was well-done. I've also watched Paladin fire missions and seen their results first-hand. You want to get rid of spam? Require a spotter, like you're firing Copperhead rounds. You want to get rid of spam? Add an interminably long cool-down. You want to get rid of spam? No rearm terminals. I could park a Flail next to it and fire until I was taken out. Out in the field I had to pay attention to my ammo counter.

Modern battlefields as a rule require artillery. It is a force multiplier. It is a long-range killer. That's what the fucking artillery does. They don't sit around staring at the whites of their enemies' eyes lobbing rounds at close range.

People hated the Flail because it work. Artillery is known as "The King of Battle" for a reason. Compared to vehicles such as Tanks or even orbital strikes the flail got very little use.
This. Coming from a combat veteran, I can tell you with all certainty that artillery is a battlefield game-changer. Got an element dug in that you cannot get out because they're stuck behind impenetrable cover? Call the artillery.

When I was in Afghanistan we had a group of al'Qaida holed up in a cave with a lot of ammo and a lot of cover. The cave was deep and every time an Air Force jet would fly over they'd just run back inside, thus avoiding damage. Our platoon leader got on the radio with Division Artillery. They fired a round for effect and told us when they lobbed. The PL timed it. Then he asked them if he could call the fire. When the jet flew over, he timed their response again. About five minutes later, the shell was in flight as the next ineffective air strike was inbound. Bomb dropped, guys ran out screaming and hollering and shouting "LALALALALALA"... and then BOOM. Arty to the face.

But the shot should take at least 1000m to prime before it hits. That's artillery.
I've been told by reliable sources that the M109 Paladin and the new M777 can engage in direct-fire modes at 200 metres, or fire straight up in the air and drop precision munitions at 300 metres.

Except for those of us who don't like planes and artillery.
This doesn't really mean anything. You don't like anything that doesn't fit YOUR way of playing and think the game should involve nothing but people exactly like you.

[Goku]

As long as it requires a team based system that is fine. Like three main positions with a LoS targeter, a gun mover, and to push the fire button. I don't want to see guys like in flails today just hitting the vpad or FD hoping to get a free kill.

[Zulthus]

As long as it requires a team based system that is fine. Like three main positions with a LoS targeter, a gun mover, and to push the fire button. I don't want to see guys like in flails today just hitting the vpad or FD hoping to get a free kill.

This. I won't mind artillery as long as it REQUIRES a spotter and is somehow prevented from sitting 5m away from the front door spamming into it every time it opens.

[Traak]

And, don't forget, an exposed crew external to the weapon.

[Sirisian]

As long as it requires a team based system that is fine. Like three main positions with a LoS targeter, a gun mover, and to push the fire button. I don't want to see guys like in flails today just hitting the vpad or FD hoping to get a free kill.
Team based solutions where players are effectively doing nothing really don't belong in PS2. I already linked this solution (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?p=586245) which effectively makes it a deployed artillery platform which requires a direct LOS to operate via a laser. Much more tactical also when you use small AOE precision rounds only.

I don't think I'd support non-LOS based artillery. That and the flail gameplay as many others have mentioned was boring.

won't mind artillery as long as it REQUIRES a spotter and is somehow prevented from sitting 5m away from the front door spamming into it every time it opens.
Long reload times I think will help to make it a more purposeful vehicle without requiring the babysitting that some people here are suggesting. Also stops this door spamming. However, I suggested that base AA and other forms of AA should be able to shoot these rounds out of the air.

This idea of seeing a shell with a giant graphical tail flying through the air is awesome in battle. It also gives AA users something to target and shoot out of the air. This should stop door camping. (Also I think I covered everyone else's negative points about artillery in that thread to design a really clean squad based solution that a lot of people seem to describing).

And, don't forget, an exposed crew external to the weapon.
Fulfilled by the person tagging locations.

[Xyntech]

Damn Sirisian, I feel like I plagiarized some of the stuff for my artillery ideas from you, even though I hadn't read that post of yours prior.

I agree about it being kind of pointless to add a bunch of superfluous roles to the artillery team. One guy sitting inside firing the thing is just going to be the same boring job that it is in PS1. In addition to that, if someone is there firing the gun, they can probably aim the thing to, which just leads to spam spam spam from behind cover.

Why even have someone inside pushing a fire button if they aren't able to aim the thing though?

In my mind, the only reason to have someone sitting inside a deployed artillery gun is if they plan on frequently packing up and changing their location. Other than that, there should be no reason to stay inside.

A LoS target acquirer paired with the artillery automatically aiming where you paint the laser would fill every role of value. Make the additional team work roles for an effective artillery piece be the soldiers and vehicles you will need to keep the artillery safe from retaliation.

Interesting idea about being able to shoot down the shells with AA btw. I don't know if that should be used or not, but it certainly would be a viable way to balance the artillery if you allowed to to continue to be longer range like the current flail is. I think I still like the idea of a lightly armored artillery that has a relatively short range. It may not be super realistic, but it would keep the artillery guns right near the heat of battles.

[mefy]

If artillery isn't included in PS2 on launch, it will be eventually added despite how many people from PS1 'hate' artillery. I think this is a biased opinion because a lot of the hate is coming from the hate of the Flail. Indeed, the Flail was very lopsided and had a lot of niches that were too good, which included:

1 - Too easy to acquire
2 - Short reload time
3 - Was essentially a one-man firing squad
etc...

Artillery in PS2 should be a lot more vulnerable, require atleast two people to use, and have a longer time between shots and not be able to deploy within so many distance of an enemy SOI.

Additionally, there should be anti-artillery batteries that CE's could deploy, similar to the Artillery Interceptors from Enemy Territory:Quake Wars.

There could be many different types of artillery, such as anti vehicle bolts which have very small AOE, but good accuracy and great damage vs. vehicles, or barrage artillery which fires multiple salvos which cover a large area and works best for softening up an area or dealing with zerging infantry.

Maybe even give pilots who are certed to be able to paint areas with their reticule for artillery commanders to hone in on.

What i'm trying to say is, artillery should be in PS2, and it should be implemented right so that it becomes a strategic part of warfare, not the centerfold of it. With a long reload time and less room for error, newbs will not be able to just spam it on one area, and if it requires atleast two people to operate then it will reinforce a lot more teamwork in the long run.

Artillery has been a part of warfare since slingshots, bow n' arrows and catapults were invented thousands of years ago, and i'd imagine in PS2 it would still be there, just way more sophisticated. I foreshadow artillery being in PS2 eventually because it helps break up stalemates and so forth.

Flail, No. Strategic artillery, Yes.

[ShockNC]

have it require a spotter to fire and make it so that it can't fire within a base's SOI (either that or get rid of cont capital shields).

problem should be fixed.

[Firefly]

And, don't forget, an exposed crew external to the weapon.
We've moved beyond Civil War cannons and towed field guns (though we still use field artillery). We now have this marvelous invention called self-propelled artillery, with enormous tank-like creations such as the Paladin and the Crusader. Exposing crew for the sake of exposing crew and for the sake of balance is dumb, considering that a number of more relevant balances have been proposed.

[Raka Maru]

1 man certed artillery unit. Limit to no short range strikes. Can deploy and take remote control with him. Must laze area. Fires round. Gets out of dodge.

Targets of attack see trail from medium armoured arty unit location. Nearby units who are paying attention see laze person. Air calv sent to take out arty. AA team waiting at arty unit to take out air cav.

[Baneblade]

The closest thing to artillary I want to see are tanks, mortars, and bombers.

[Traak]

I just don't see artillery that can have someone inside it. Then it reminds me of the flail too much.

[Firefly]

I just don't see artillery that can have someone inside it. Then it reminds me of the flail too much.
Yeah. Well that's not my problem. As I said, we have this common-pool technology that originated in the 20th century called self-propelled artillery. I could easily say "I can't see a vehicle that have people inside it. It reminds me of the Mag-mower too much. That's a personal preference that caters to the individual. It does nothing to address the merits of artillery on the battlefield and how to properly implement it without making it a killspam machine.

Everyone has their personal gripe about what constitutes a Spam-Cannon: if it's not the vintage Lasher, it's the Jackhammer. If it's not the Jackhammer it's the BFR. If it's not the BFR it's the Pounder MAX. If it's not the Pounder MAX it's the Thumper. If it's not the Thumper it's the Prowler on door-spam sentry duty. If it's not the Prowler it's a random Han Solo lone-wolf playing Mag-mower with the Mag-rider. I hate to break it to you, but the Flail is not an uber weapon of doom any more than anything else.

Let's examine the Flail here for a second. As I mentioned earlier, there were a couple of problems with the implementation. I'll be the first to admit it. The rate of fire was way too fast, the whole ancient-tech spew-lava-bolts was far-fetched, and the pairing of a rearm tower and a Flail meant unchecked abuse if nobody bothered to contain it. But what about its multiple flaws? 1) Crappy armour 2) Slow ground-speed 3) Weak firing arc 4) Slow maneuver speed 5) Ballistic/dumbfire rounds with a gigantic flaming trail that says "Here I am!". If you got owned, repeatedly, by a Flail, then you're a dolt. Full stop. Why you continued to beat your head against the wall is beyond me. The Flail is a bullet, bomb, and OS magnet. You don't even need to get near it to OS it.

The only times a Flail was a pain in the ass were as follows: 1) if you were too fucking stupid to go take it out, or 2) if a Flail gunner sat in a properly-modded/linked courtyard next to a rearming tower. I would add in a 3) friendly fire, but honestly between player peer pressure/griefing and the fact that every other weapon is capable of friendly fire I just felt it unnecessary. I'm guilty of laying the Thumper on too thick and taking out friendlies. I'm also equally guilty of OS'ing other TR players that were abusing the Flail to a level that caused mayhem among the TR.

Let's examine effective counters to the Flail for a second. 1) Pretty much any aircraft outside of a Lodestar unless you suicide on top of it. 2) Pretty much any vehicle with a good firing arc, good movement speed, and a driver with a functioning brain and a pulse. 3) Any infantry who could work a Boomer without getting vaped by a bailing Flail gunner.

[Helwyr]

Short answer no. At least when I think of the Flail in PS1. Seriously is there anyone here, anyone, that can honestly say being the one sitting operating a Flail (not spotting for it) was fun?

I think if PS2 has Artillery, the best way to implement it may be to tie the artillery pieces themselves to territory control and resources, not a vehicle that players cert in and use as they did with the Flail. The calling in of artillery and spotting can be sub branches of the Leadership cert trees.

Also Fail wasn't the only Artillery in PS1, the Orbital Strike could be counted as such as well. And no I don't want to see every player that's Grinded CEP to be able to spam OSes either. Again something tied to territory control, resources, and cert investment.

[Baron]

Except for those of us who don't like planes and artillery.

That's too bad you don't like planes, this is a teamwork based game. Hopefully someone on your empire does.

[Hamma]

I am somewhat torn on Artillery, I hate getting killed by things I can't see just as much as the next guy. Running out the door only to be swatted down by someone on the other side of a mountain.

I do think that Artillery has a place in PlanetSide 2. But it MUST be done right, the Flail was a horrible implementation so that should be thrown out right away. Multiple operators, requirement to have a second person to laze a target etc - all of those things could improve on the concept.

[Peacemaker]

Why's everyone say the flail had shit armor? That thing had heaps of armor.

[Traak]

That's too bad you don't like planes, this is a teamwork based game. Hopefully someone on your empire does.

He isn't required to like planes to be part of a team!

[TheRagingGerbil]

Artillery is ok as long as it requires multiple people to operate.

Make the gunner not have crosshairs until his spotter activated a laze. Then have the kickback be such after firing that the spotter would have to laze again so the gunner could setup again.

[Firefly]

Seriously is there anyone here, anyone, that can honestly say being the one sitting operating a Flail (not spotting for it) was fun?
My outfit has a template operation for an artillery firebase. Multiple locations on continents that can be easily defended. Set up CE, Skywatch and AV. Pull Flails. Muster in the centre, and start blasting lazed targets. Cloaker does the lazing and forward observing to adjust fire. Seems to be a big hit with the outfit and also with the majority of the empire that recognises it's coming from a coordinated source that isn't out to grief, teamkill, or spam.

[TacosWLove]

Yes gief short(er) range artillery. Something that still has to be within a klick of the base or so...

[NapalmEnima]

For Artillery to work, it has to be fun/exciting, just as much as any other weapon is.

I'm all for deployable mortars via CE that can be remotely controlled with a target painter.

Crewing a mortar is Not Fun, UNLESS you get a shell cam, which could be cool. Say you've got a quad-barrel mortar. You fire three HE/scatter rounds, and a final cam round. The cam round should leave the barrel well before the first round hits, giving you a view of what effect your fire mission had. Give the camera round view a HUD that highlights the other rounds and their impact points so you can see what's going on as it happens. Go ahead and give the cam round a relatively small HE warhead of its own too. That could be Fun To Operate.

The aoe/cluster round needn't be an OSK vs anything but the lightest infantry types. Two solid hits OTOH, should be Serious Business. The multi-barrel fire-mission thing should probably raise this to whatever the entire mission turns out to be (minus 1 for the camera round) for heavy infantry. One or two AV shells should probably drop a MAX.

Another way to make artillery more interesting is to allow people to equip shields that are very good at deflecting arty damage, at the cost of other types. "Yes, you'll come out the other side of this curtain barrage alive, but your medic better make it too, and when you engage the enemy troops you'll be at a disadvantage".

Or allow incoming rounds to be destroyed, either by dedicated Anti-Arty, or by AA. Such methods could be countered by artillery rounds that break into (low-damage, none too accurate) sub munitions prior to reaching their apogee. Light damage over a wide area that will mostly get through.

Say one anti-arty can handle two artillery pieces firing standard ammo, or take out about half the munitions of an early-scattering round.


About 1-2 seconds before impact, a soldier's HUD should be able to detect the incoming round[s], and show their estimated location/time/damage radius... probably with blaring warning sounds or at least a simulated "incoming round" noise. Stealthed rounds might get a much shorter warning, have a chance of getting past anti-arty on their own, and do less damage over a smaller area.

Make the artillery detection HUD thingy a relatively low-level unlock for most classes, save perhaps cloakers, which would be further up the tree, and perhaps cost resources to spawn with (has to use fancier sensors that'll work inside a cloak field).

Within a friendly SOI, the artillery HUD thing should work THROUGH WALLS. If someone is spamming the door, the infantry coming through that door should mostly know about it and know right when the rounds will hit. Between good timing and artillery-focused shielding, it should be possible to survive door-spam.

Anti-arty should only be deployable within a friendly SOI. Artillery should be deployable anywhere outside a hostile SOI. The range of the arty should be such that it can reach from outside the SOI to the far side of the base itself. You should be able to shell the far wall from the edge of the SOI at the very least. Arty should have a minimum range (say 50 meters).

Up-scaled versions: Wall turret versions of both artillery and anti-arty. Possibly vehicle mounts for both. It's easy enough to prevent direct fire Arty by giving them a minimum barrel angle.

Vehicle mounted arty should be horribly inaccurate unless the vehicle is stationary/deployed. A deployed vehicle should self-level to some extent, and not deploy at all on a slope steep enough that it cannot self-level. This combination makes direct-fire arty impossible.

Actively manned anti-arty should be significantly more effective than automated versions, at least given someone good at it. The damage on anti-arty should be fairly low, such that while it can be used as AI/AA, dedicated weapons for same are much better at it. Likewise, you can try to knock out incoming rounds with some types of AA/AI, but they'll lack the detection systems and precision that make it so much easier for the dedicated Anti-arty.

Vehicles (and perhaps infantry) should be able to equip dedicated artillery sensors capable of detecting arty AS IT IS BEING FIRED (given non-stealth rounds), thus pinpointing it for destruction.

THAT could be fun all around. It'd also be quite a bit of work on SOE's part... though I think it would be Worth It.

[Aractain]

It would be kinda strange to have (maybe?) one man lib bombers, one man tanks - one man everythings but 2-3 man required artillery that can't even fire unless another person is doing something miles away.

Thats just asking for the 200 hours spent on implmenting it to be wasted since only a small percentage of organised players would use it opposed to a bigger percentage of unorganised AND organised players.

You can make it fun for both sides without requireing all those handicaps.

[Sirisian]

You can make it fun for both sides without requireing all those handicaps.
I was talking to someone on IRC actually. It came to my attention that a lot of people view artillery (at least he did) as an area of suppression barrage weapon only that killed infantry instantly. That's a balance issue. Saying for instance that artillery is a precision weapon with a 30 second cool down between precise shots is a big difference between "it fires non-stop and covers a 30m area with shells killing everything inside" or "it's a flail round with an AOE of 10m that kills everything".

NapalmEnima's Mortar idea is a good example of a well balanced system. Allowing players to quickly plant down CE mortars to then use at a later point with a LOS allows flexibility and choices.

Regarding my previous vehicle based solution if a person can only pull a single vehicle at a time that's a huge choice to make. Do I want to pull, set up, and use my artillery to fight stationary vehicles as a cloaker/grunt or do I want to pull regular tanks and aircraft.

I think the visual system will be important. It gives players that pay attention to their radar and the sky something to look out for. (Basically situational awareness). That and if they have particle ribbons behind them then they look nice when flying and add to the massive battle feeling. (Also gives players a key of where to look for the artillery vehicles or mortar deployables).

[Firefly]

It came to my attention that a lot of people view artillery (at least he did) as an area of suppression barrage weapon only that killed infantry instantly. That's a balance issue.
That's because it is. Artillery is used to kill dug-in infantry; wreck support structures like roads, airfields, bridges, and buildings; and deny/suppress areas of operation. That's what it does - it's a force multiplier. Instead of having to put an infantry division in a town, you drop arty. Unprotected infantry are exactly that - unprotected. There's a reason infantrymen are called bullet-stoppers, squishies and softies. That's not a balance issue, that's called pecking order. Humans are the weakest things on a battlefield - the reason our troops survive is because they are well-protected, highly-trained, incredibly lethal, and our battlefield medicine saves lives. The nature of artillery is to drop out of the sky and slaughter anything that is unprotected. That's what it does. Artillery isn't designed to drop warm milk on you and put you to sleep. I'm told by tankers and artillery gunners that a 155mm shell cannot kill a modern first-world main battle tank. It might disable it, but it won't kill it. Our Abrams tanks are supposed to be nigh-invincible. You would literally need to drop an artillery round down the hatch, rendering a catastrophic crew kill.

So, you're a foot-zerging grunt in Planetside. Against a tank, you're fucked. Against aircraft, you're fucked. Against artillery, you're fucked. Don't want to be fucked? Either join 'em, or go inside. None of those things can get you when you're inside. There it becomes a battle of human versus human, and that's where balance should come into play.

[Sirisian]

That's because it is. Artillery is used to kill dug-in infantry; wreck support structures like roads, airfields, bridges, and buildings; and deny/suppress areas of operation.
You missed my point. I'm saying it can be implemented in multiple ways. Allowing it "spam" areas is one implementation and balance choice.


So, you're a foot-zerging grunt in Planetside. Against a tank, you're fucked. Against aircraft, you're fucked. Against artillery, you're fucked. Don't want to be fucked? Either join 'em, or go inside. None of those things can get you when you're inside. There it becomes a battle of human versus human, and that's where balance should come into play.
Grunts could use the laser based system. It's actually designed for them to take out vehicles that are stationary or as an extra choice in the battle. So while you see artillery as being used against infantry. I see it as easy to dodge by infantry. Artillery would be ideally for vehicles, and I'd balance mortars against infantry (AOE grenade). Hitting snipers for instance or taking out stationary deployables, like other motar CE.

[Firefly]

Allowing it "spam" areas is one implementation and balance choice.
Which is why I advocate a multi-crew vehicle (because there's really no such thing as one-man artillery on a battlefield), a very long reload time, and no such thing as rearming terminals or ancient-tech Jesus-juice. Give it a finite ammo capacity that requires you to actually go rearm it the old-fashioned way, by getting more ammo.

Grunts could use the laser based system. It's actually designed for them to take out vehicles that are stationary or as an extra choice in the battle. So while you see artillery as being used against infantry. I see it as easy to dodge by infantry. Artillery would be ideally for vehicles, and I'd balance mortars against infantry (AOE grenade). Hitting snipers for instance or taking out stationary deployables, like other motar CE.
I know you're saying what YOU would do... now that I've got that out of the way, artillery is not an anti-vehicular weapon unless you're using it against soft vehicles that are stationary. Yeah sure you can fire a Copperhead or Excalibur round and try to use it that way, but there are specific anti-vehicular platforms. In Planetside they're called... anti-vehicular. Infantry can carry them, vehicles can be used as anti-vehicular platforms, and aircraft can be used as anti-vehicular platforms - we can even go one better and come up with AV munitions for vehicles. Using artillery as an AV platform just means you've got a very long-range tank. Artillery is an indirect fire weapon, and until very recently was ballistic/dumbfire. You can influence its path greatly by having a good forward observer, a talented fire direction centre, and a crew/gun commander who know how to use the information they're given and orient the weapon properly. But in the end, using it against moving vehicles should require line-of-sight by the gunner, and when you do that you're just creating a mega-tank.

[Sirisian]

Which is why I advocate a multi-crew vehicle (because there's really no such thing as one-man artillery on a battlefield), a very long reload time, and no such thing as rearming terminals or ancient-tech Jesus-juice. Give it a finite ammo capacity that requires you to actually go rearm it the old-fashioned way, by getting more ammo.
You seem to be stuck in the real world. You can still have ammo capacities with an automated artillery system.

Also most people's idea of a multi-crew artillery system is someone sitting back from the battle. That kind of gameplay I think is boring.

artillery is not an anti-vehicular weapon unless you're using it against soft vehicles that are stationary.
Balance issue really. Trading realism for gameplay is important here. You don't need to stick to the real world use of artillery if it makes more sense from a gameplay to standpoint to use it as an anti-vehicular weapon.

[DviddLeff]

How I would like to see artillery implemented is in a few ways:

1. Infantry deployed mortar. User spots targets using binoculars/targeting laser which fires the mortar remotely. To make this not just an explosive sniper role there would be a decent time delay between firing the shot and it landing. Ammo would be a severe limitation, maybe only 5 shots before having to rearm.
2. Vehicle artillery piece. This is just a heavy version of the infantry mortar; same process to fire it but slower refire time.

Both would have two options for ammo types; first a fragmentation round that spreads over an area with weak damage (say enough to kill a cloaker, but nothing else). Second is a concentrated round which can kill any infantry armour type and take a decent bite out of armour, but the area is very small. The artillery piece would have more damage and larger area of effect, but is a much larger target itself and would take more resources to acquire.

Originally I intended for the mortars and artillery to require a spotter and a trigger-man to be effective, but as anyone can just grab a tank and use the main gun, why would they bother?

If wind actually is in game and effects projectiles, all the better as it will add some real skill to the equation on top of leading moving targets.

Edit: What I really want to see is artillery being there in the commanders arsenal to use to push squads forward through enemy areas. One of the best FPS experiences I have had was in Bad Company 2 running through an artillery barrage to take out the defenders; total surprise and awesome to boot.

[Draep]

Also most people's idea of a multi-crew artillery system is someone sitting back from the battle. That kind of gameplay I think is boring.


Balance issue really. Trading realism for gameplay is important here. You don't need to stick to the real world use of artillery if it makes more sense from a gameplay to standpoint to use it as an anti-vehicular weapon.

I don't think it's boring, neither do other people in this thread. Fun is subjective. Argument invalidated.

It doesn't make sense from a gameplay standpoint to make it anti-vehicular. The flail was a shitty AV weapon for the same reason as any artillery piece, it was not deadly accurate at long range because the time it took for a shell to get from barrel to target. Besides, as Firefly stated, there are many other, better AV platforms.

[Peacemaker]

I think artillary with a camera system would be cool. Maybe a lightly armored ROV/UAV that could be shot down. Counter artillary would be needed. Best way to knock out arty is with more arty. It would create a new way to play the game some would like. When Naval combat hits ships could have artillary duels.

[Firefly]

You seem to be stuck in the real world. You can still have ammo capacities with an automated artillery system.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm talking about the specific system of rearming whereby you take your Ancient Tech flail with its magic capacitor of 100 magic sunbeams, park it in, say, a Dropship Centre right by the big grey magic rearming station, and you lay down on the trigger. You never run out of ammo, just like a spaghetti western cowboy six-shooter.

Also most people's idea of a multi-crew artillery system is someone sitting back from the battle. That kind of gameplay I think is boring.
So don't play it. I think sex with a vacuum cleaner is boring, so I won't be doing that anymore. I can get my rocks off some other way. If you want to be up front getting your virtual hands dirty, do it. There are a number of avid PC gamers who suck at CQB but still want to feel like they're contributing to a fight. Artillery lets them have a chance at killing someone without getting into a gunfight.

Balance issue really. Trading realism for gameplay is important here. You don't need to stick to the real world use of artillery if it makes more sense from a gameplay to standpoint to use it as an anti-vehicular weapon.
That's just it - it DOESN'T make sense to use it as an anti-vehicular weapon. Who the fuck would use the Flail as an AV weapon? It's ARTILLERY. That's what artillery does!! This has nothing to do with the real world, and everything to do with common sense and proper application of terminology. If you take an artillery piece and turn it into a direct-fire AV weapon, IT IS NO LONGER ARTILLERY. It's something else entirely. It's AV or armour. I don't go around taking my Repeater pistol in Planetside shooting at aircraft and calling it AA. That's just... Jesus fuck, why are we even having this conversation?

[Hamma]

Going to have to agree there Arty is meant to kill softies. That is the entire point.. :lol: It needs to be "balanced" around that if it does in fact go into the game.

[Helwyr]

Going to have to agree there Arty is meant to kill softies. That is the entire point.. :lol: It needs to be "balanced" around that if it does in fact go into the game.

Well I for one would be interested to hear how proponents of Artillery would balance it in PS2. It's not like outdoor infantry in PS needed any more things that could annihilate them with a click of a mouse button. Considering the huge stink OSK snipers brought up on the forums regardless of how difficult it may be to land the shot, I find it a little incredulous that a OSK AE weapon that doesn't even need line of sight would be a welcome addition.

[Firefly]

Well I for one would be interested to hear how proponents of Artillery would balance it in PS2. It's not like outdoor infantry in PS needed any more things that could annihilate them with a click of a mouse button. Considering the huge stink OSK snipers brought up on the forums regardless of how difficult it may be to land the shot, I find it a little incredulous that a OSK AE weapon that doesn't even need line of sight would be a welcome addition.
The proponents of artillery have been talking about means of balancing the weapon system. Unfortunately, people have been coddled by gaming expectations since gaming existed - level 40 with 10,000 hit points and magical armour ring a bell? People want their little crunchies to survive anything but a nuke, and even then popping a medkit or healing potion should give you a chance at surviving that. In the face of that, the only perfect answer is that tanks are shit, planes are shit, arty is shit, and some idiot with a knife can bunny-hop his way to first place.

The bottom line is, unarmoured and unprotected infantry are the lowest common denominator on the battlefield. That's how war goes, whether it's real war or online simulated warfare. Pitting a grunt with a rifle against a tank should ALWAYS result in the grunt's demise. I was an infantryman for four years and despite an excellent career as an Army Ranger, I recognise that the infantry is the weakest unit on the field. Artillery is by far the deadliest and most effective form of land-based armament. Full stop, the end. If applied correctly, infantry can dominate a battle. In the end, objectives are seized by boots on the ground. But using your combined-arms aspect is how you get there, and that means bombing the shit out of enemy positions with CAS and arty, having your armour accompany you, and moving more quickly than the enemy.

That Rambo one-man-army bullshit is Hollywood brainwashing. Maybe it flies in shitty e-sports shooters, but common sense applies in all other cases. There is no perfect answer - artillery is a killer. You either avoid it, or counter it. That's how you beat it.

[DviddLeff]

In the end, objectives are seized by boots on the ground. But using your combined-arms aspect is how you get there, and that means bombing the shit out of enemy positions with CAS and arty, having your armour accompany you, and moving more quickly than the enemy.

That's what the game is and should be all about. Combined warfare, strategy, tactics and skill all combined in one glorious 1000 person battle.

[SKYeXile]

Make artiliry fixed gun implacments on some bases, that way you could place them so they cant rape all vbays and doors. then require you to have a cert to buy the correct ammo, then also make it so you have to buy the ammo from a regular terminal, running back and fowards, after say 20 shots.

[DviddLeff]

Doorways and vehicle bays need to be protected with overhead cover and decent blocks to minimise direct fire from the courtyard.

[Redshift]

The bottom line is, unarmoured and unprotected infantry are the lowest common denominator on the battlefield.

You fuck up infantry outdoors and you lose your player base. I know i'm not alone in prefering to play an FPS for the grunting.

[Captain1nsaneo]

You fuck up infantry outdoors and you lose your player base. I know i'm not alone in prefering to play an FPS for the grunting.

EMP nades and use of the landscape can help even the odds but a straight up drag out fight should always go to the tank.

[SKYeXile]

EMP nades and use of the landscape can help even the odds but a straight up drag out fight should always go to the tank.

yea for sure. 2-3 grunts should be able to take on a tank, and depending on the terrain they should be easy able to kill it if they're elevated behind cover.

[NapalmEnima]

EMP nades and use of the landscape can help even the odds but a straight up drag out fight should always go to the tank.

One trooper with a stack of EMP grenades and a couple AV troopers can beat up a tank pretty severely.

And remember that we now have locational damage. "Turning tail and running" can get you killed too.

In the BF games you can one-shot a tank if you hit it in the rear quarter. PS2 tanks might have something more specific (a thermal exhaust port just below the main port), or be less vulnerable. We'll have to wait and see.

I suspect that a tank rolling past an AV trooper or two is going to die very quickly.


But this is veering rather far afield. We're talking Artillery here.


I'm convinced that a variety of shell types, pervasive infantry-level detection/warning, and the ability to destroy incoming shells with dedicated equipment can make artillery exciting for everyone.

Not instant doom for exposed troops, but quite capable of killing them with some decent planning (putting the shells in the right places 3-5 seconds in advance). And quite capable of removing their desire to break cover, pinning them down until:

The artillery is destroyed
They die by inches to all the bits of splash damage that get through
The artillery's allies show up and dig you out.


If those infantry folks can get to cover and they have CE with them with whatever they'd need to deploy anti-arty, then all bets are off... though successfully setting up anti-arty while actively being shelled should take some doing.

OTOH, I imagine one of the medic abilities might be to deploy a small shield, big enough to cover the medic and a downed comrade long enough to get that casualty back on their feet and provide a little cover while they get back to their lines. I also imagine it would deploy rather quickly... under one second. If that shield was big enough to cover the CE trooper and the anti-arty gizmo until it was up and running, deploying it while under fire suddenly becomes quite reasonable... though the rest of your squad might be toast.

So they squad-spawn a medic and start scraping the rest of the squad up off the ground, now under the aegis of the anti-arty. They can then retreat while dispersed enough to not all be under the pounding of the guns, or advance with the same dispersion, or call for backup, or even deploy their own artillery and go for some counter-battery fire.

Depth of gameplay. Move and counter move. Fun.

Not the run and gun some folks like, but PS isn't really UT/Quake in the first place. Iron sights tend to reduce such things as well.


So if the softies don't want to be quite so soft, they'd better all get into some armored transport. A sunderer or a couple deliverers can get that squad to where they're going faster, and keep them relatively safe. That's what they're for.

[Sirisian]

That's just it - it DOESN'T make sense to use it as an anti-vehicular weapon.
Sure it does. Stationary tank on a hill. Tag it with your artillery and watch it get struck with a precision shell dealing massive damage. You're stuck in the real world still. I was balancing it in regards to infantry using it to kill vehicles since I was getting the impression others didn't like the idea of artillery killing infantry. I'm indifferent to the idea myself.

These kinds of thoughts made me consider the AV approach:
You fuck up infantry outdoors and you lose your player base. I know i'm not alone in prefering to play an FPS for the grunting.

However, if everyone is for artillery killing infantry then I don't see why not. I'd just rather see it implemented to mess around with rather than not implemented at all. Chances are those 30 people are thinking of the flail artillery which is focused at killing infantry in a courtyard. That kind of stuff I'm guessing is a no-go.

Don't get me wrong you could still kill infantry with it. But I feel the shells should be precision based. So hitting a sniper on a hill sure. It would do minor AOE damage to others around the blast, but it's not some huge 50 shell barrage. Any player could fairly easily move out of the way as they saw it in the air.

[Redshift]

EMP nades and use of the landscape can help even the odds but a straight up drag out fight should always go to the tank.
yea for sure. 2-3 grunts should be able to take on a tank, and depending on the terrain they should be easy able to kill it if they're elevated behind cover.
We're talking about Artillery, The current vehicle grunt balance is ok for the most part, you're screwed if you walk into a bad situation, you can avoid that happening with some thought


Not instant doom for exposed troops, but quite capable of killing them with some decent planning (putting the shells in the right places 3-5 seconds in advance). And quite capable of removing their desire to break cover, pinning them down until:

The artillery is destroyed
They die by inches to all the bits of splash damage that get through
The artillery's allies show up and dig you out.


Maybe it's just me but that really doesn't sound like fun, its essentially making the outside into a big radiator field

[Firefly]

Sure it does. Stationary tank on a hill. Tag it with your artillery and watch it get struck with a precision shell dealing massive damage.
:rofl:

That's not artillery. That's armour. Two completely different weapons systems, two completely different schools of warfare, two completely different battlefield implementations, two completely different set of tactics.

Again.

You don't go pulling your Repeater and shooting at aircraft, then calling yourself AA. :rolleyes:

[Sirisian]

That's not artillery.
Yeah sure you can fire a Copperhead or Excalibur round and try to use it that way, but there are specific anti-vehicular platforms.
As you said yourself. It's AV artillery. That's what I was pointing out. Would the community be more comfortable with precision AV rounds or would they be able to accept AI based artillery. Not hard to understand. Just looking at it from a balance perspective.

But yeah long range artillery for AV from a vehicle and shorter range AI mortars via CE seem balanced. I don't like the idea of setting up an artillery vehicle and having to move it whenever the battle moves a territory block. :lol:

[NapalmEnima]

Maybe it's just me but that really doesn't sound like fun, its essentially making the outside into a big radiator field

Yes, but selectively, and only when someone is actively working to make it so.

And don't forget that a hostile has to be actively lasing where the shells will land. You plug them, and you're free and clear... an option that I didn't list initially, I admit. I'd forgotten too.

So someone can "make the outside into a big radiator field", but only a the price of drawing a great big bullseye on their forehead.

So given pervasive artillery round detection in infantry HUDs, chances of them actually losing more than a couple folks are fairly slim.


In the end, I don't have a problem with "artillery will make your life suck" being another reason for infantry to not want to walk across large, open spaces. You're really just adding artillery to a list that already includes "vehicles, air-2-ground, snipers, and other infantry with cover & rifles".

Just don't DO that.

When infantry can see the incoming rounds a second or so before they hit, knows precisely where they'll hit, and can see the blast radius, they're much less likely to be killed by it, even if the rounds were OSKs against infantry.

Given any kind of cover plus that advanced warning, arty becomes a Hassle rather than a killer. Sub-munitions might ding you up, arty will encourage you to stay near cover (which should be the case anyway, particularly with the TTK estimates I'm coming up with).

A good enough detector (giving you more warning), plus clever use of cover might keep you completely safe. Might also keep you from detecting other things very well... stealth CE or enemy health/shields for example. And cover from where the shell is going to go off and cover from the enemy infantry might not be the same thing.

Side grades. Depth of gameplay. Combined arms > more of one thing. Good times.

[Draep]

Artillery is essentially an infantry weapon anyway. As outdoor infantry, wouldn't you love the option to call in a strike on an entrenched group of players? Perhaps you can imagine situations where groups of infantry with lots of AA hold the high ground forever and cut off an essential route. With artillery, you could force them to move or face a lot of losses. Artillery forever artillery forever

[KernolKlusterFk]

Considering that a significant part of the PS player base are associated with the military I think Artillery is important. Though I think it should be an Outfit only certification because IRL artillery are usually used in groups in volleys. Maybe to curb dumbass individuals doing it to get kills, the points will go towards your outfit and not them.

[Raka Maru]

Considering that a significant part of the PS player base are associated with the military I think Artillery is important. Though I think it should be an Outfit only certification because IRL artillery are usually used in groups in volleys. Maybe to curb dumbass individuals doing it to get kills, the points will go towards your outfit and not them.

Why should I need an outfit to play as artillery?

I like the idea of CE mortars. It just needs balance. If tanks can solo, why not arty?

[Timealude]

Yes, but selectively, and only when someone is actively working to make it so.

And don't forget that a hostile has to be actively lasing where the shells will land. You plug them, and you're free and clear... an option that I didn't list initially, I admit. I'd forgotten too.

So someone can "make the outside into a big radiator field", but only a the price of drawing a great big bullseye on their forehead.

So given pervasive artillery round detection in infantry HUDs, chances of them actually losing more than a couple folks are fairly slim.


In the end, I don't have a problem with "artillery will make your life suck" being another reason for infantry to not want to walk across large, open spaces. You're really just adding artillery to a list that already includes "vehicles, air-2-ground, snipers, and other infantry with cover & rifles".

Just don't DO that.

When infantry can see the incoming rounds a second or so before they hit, knows precisely where they'll hit, and can see the blast radius, they're much less likely to be killed by it, even if the rounds were OSKs against infantry.

Given any kind of cover plus that advanced warning, arty becomes a Hassle rather than a killer. Sub-munitions might ding you up, arty will encourage you to stay near cover (which should be the case anyway, particularly with the TTK estimates I'm coming up with).

A good enough detector (giving you more warning), plus clever use of cover might keep you completely safe. Might also keep you from detecting other things very well... stealth CE or enemy health/shields for example. And cover from where the shell is going to go off and cover from the enemy infantry might not be the same thing.

Side grades. Depth of gameplay. Combined arms > more of one thing. Good times.

I would say an implant would be good here to give you a notice when enemy shells are coming as well as being a to see them visually. The implants could give you a bit more of a notice.

[Traak]

...Outfit only...

No. Anything that punishes people for not being in some faggy outfit is not something I agree with. That puts you at the mercy of some outfit leader or one of his anally retentive cronies.

[Helwyr]

[...]The bottom line is, unarmoured and unprotected infantry are the lowest common denominator on the battlefield. That's how war goes, whether it's real war or online simulated warfare. Pitting a grunt with a rifle against a tank should ALWAYS result in the grunt's demise.[...]

This is the heart of your argument and also it's folly. While I doubt many want to completely disregard realism or a degree of simulation, most players aren't looking for a real war or an accurate simulation of one. Planetside is still a game not a US military battle simulator. While some consideration ought to be made regarding unit type such as a tank vs infantry, ultimately balance is based on that it's 1 player vs 1 player. That infantry generally die much faster to vehicles like tanks in Planetside is more out of balancing that infantry players have greater accessibility, versatility, and ability to fight indoors, not due to real life factors of tanks vs infantry.

Vehicles that require more players cooperating to operate can act as force multipliers justifying greater vehicle strength than 3 infantry and solo vehicles. But here again that is based on the fact it's 3 players that have to cooperate and coordinate their efforts not because said vehicle's real world equivalent is a beast on the battlefield.

I'm not saying no artillery, but if you want it accepted by the majority of the rest of the player base it needs to balanced in mind to what I've said above, not strictly on how it works in real warfare.

[I SandRock]

The only artillery I can see work well. As in be effective as well as widely used. Is if it was an upgrade for an already existing vehicle. Which then only gets say 1-2 ammo. If 10-20 people in the vicinity of a base have the upgrade you still get 10-40 shells hitting a base.

Nothing else so far shows me you can have effective and not OP dedicated artillery that is made so that i can be widely used and not sporadically.


PS. Planetside 2 is not a war simulator. It's a video game meant for entertainment.

[Bruttal]

Id like to see it in game but not the way the flail is built. This is how i think it should work first theres a small circle where a biger damage is done (really not big but bigger to the next sets) then falling into a bigger circle from the first one basiclly firecrackers does decent object/vehicle damage but vary vary vary vary vary low damage to the player.

but that first circle is the size of a single person or something so inless you run INTO the fire then you wont be killed.

[Draep]

Perhaps a big balance consideration for artillery is one of the very arguments people are making against artillery implementation--it's not that fun to sit around and click a button, even as a big group. This alone I think will deter giant bombardments from happening constantly. Even if large outfits put together big artillery sections, they sacrifice numbers that could have been used to man tanks or hold a rifle.

With that said, giving almost everyone access to automatic artillery through CE or tank mounts is a bad idea. This would only create giant, constant barrages at any suspected infantry position, creating the exact scenario that most artillery-deniers picture when they ponder the subject.

Planetside 2 promises that all land will have battle value and I think this will cut down on the boredom of constant base assaults. One of the biggest problems for the flail is that you really only had to fire at the V-bay or some outer base door to get kills and you had infinite range to do so. If the fights aren't centered on bases all the time, artillery could have real value.

[Aractain]

If arty is a support weapon, it wont see as much use and the people who use it will be the people who actualy want to support the team not the kill focused players (who should be in tanks, aircraft and other easy to shoot at targets).

There really isn't anything to worry about with this kind of implementation, liberators will be FAR more deadly (and more common) but would probably be less helpful to ground forces. Arty should be about allowing others to get kills (and you get extra support rewards on top of all the assist kills).

Normally this kind of thing (suppresion, how arty would help teammates on top of some damage) would only be in more hardcore niche wargames. However battlefield 3 is a mainstream wargame but has this kind of system in place. If BF3 has such and PS2 dosn't??? This cannot stand.

[Firefly]

I'm going to cut to the heart of the matter.

I don't like the idea of setting up an artillery vehicle and having to move it whenever the battle moves a territory block. :lol:
Again. If you don't like it, don't do it. All this trying to tailor the game to your specific wants and desires, to the exclusion of other playstyles and players, means exactly one thing: you should go build your own game if you want one style of play.

The rest is technical BS. Feel free to read, or not. Don't care.

As you said yourself. It's AV artillery. That's what I was pointing out.
No it wasn't, stop being pedantic. Trying to use my argument in a way that was not intended just doubly demonstrates the failure of your argument and also proves you have no idea what you're talking about. If you're wholly against artillery, you're choosing the wrong battle. I suggest you come up with ideas as to why it's not a good idea, instead of trying to argue against real-world applications. The key word in what I said was "TRY". Just like you can TRY to bust out your Repeater and shoot at a Mossie, and call yourself AA. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. As for using it as a tank: you can call it an direct-fire anti-vehicular armoured artillery vehicle, but that's a tank. The end. Jesus. If you tried to use the Flail to shoot at enemy armour, well that was your first mistake. Even barring one measly success still means you're not using it as intended, in a very extreme method. A tank is a direct-fire weapon. Artillery is an indirect-fire weapon. Tanks are primarily used against other tanks, bunker-busting, blowing up buildings. Artillery is intended to suppress/deny areas and kill troops from range. That's it. The end. Stop trying to make it into something it's not. Again. You don't pick up a Repeater pistol, shoot at aircraft, and declare yourself AA. It's just stupid. If you want your artillery to shoot at vehicles, then redesignate it a tank.

Now. If you WANT to fire a laser-guided cruise missile out of an indirect fire weapon, I suggest you go NC and pick up the Phoenix. On a vehicular scale, maybe you can ask Higby to build a Phoenix Enforcer hybrid. Just don't try and tell him that I said you should model it on the Copperhead or the Excalibur. When I mentioned Copperhead and Excalibur rounds, I'm talking about TRYING as an extreme real-world case to give you a shred of hope over futility, and you're pretty much going to fail because that's just not how it was designed. Copperheads and Excalibur rounds are not AV munitions, just as tanks are not artillery. They are not guided munitions like a heat-seeker. They will not fly around in circles or do a snake-trail if the target moves. It will not follow you home like a puppy. Don't even try to use them against a moving target unless you're G-d's gift to forward observing, because you might as well strip off your clothes and go chase Iraqis with your limp dick hanging out.

Both rounds are incredibly expensive compared to regular arty rounds. Therefore they are special-purpose munitions. A total of what, 20? Excalibur rounds have been fired in Iraq. Copperheads, when used against tanks, are used against stationary tanks - which is defined as a hardened static target, like a bunker or pillbox. The optimum use of Copperhead munitions is against multiple targets in large clusters, or against a single very high priority target. In all cases it requires a constant lazing of the target, which had best be stationary when the round begins its decent *UNLESS* you're firing from over 3km away. And when you DO use it against a moving target, your FO needs to be a genius and your target needs to be moving extremely slowly. You have to calculate the target vehicle's speed, determine where it will be in the munition's travel time, and aim at THAT spot, not the vehicle. It's not a cruise missile, and the fact that you're trying to justify your argument with something that doesn't even exist just tells me how badly you just want to win an argument for which you are unfortunately ill-prepared. You can wave your hand and say "Presto chango" all day, son, but the rabbit's not coming out of the hat if you suck at sleight of hand. Most Excalibur rounds are either target-penetrators or carry sub-munitions, which is an airburst anti-personnel (think Liberator AP cluster bomb). In all cases, they are GPS guided and generally cannot be used against a moving target. Probably should have done your homework on that. :rolleyes: Yes, both munitions are guided, but they are not widely used against a moving target. Their most widely-used function is extremely close-range direct support of infantry - their precision status means we can drop them right on top of an enemy that is within a hundred metres of friendlies, because the circular error of probability is like... five/ten metres. As opposed to conventional arty shells, which has a CEP of around one-fifty to three hundred metres. You laze a nearby target or point where you want the burst, and BLAM. That's it. It is not a fucking cruise missile and trying to treat it as one indicates one of two things: the person lazing is either mildly retarded or has no other options because somehow the military ran out of conventional shells.

Would the community be more comfortable with precision AV rounds or would they be able to accept AI based artillery. Not hard to understand. Just looking at it from a balance perspective.
If that's the argument you want to pursue, then pursue that. That's wholly different from talking about using artillery as AV, which it was never designed to do, EVER. Guided munitions like in your failed redirect are used against hardened, stationary targets or in extremely close support of friendly infantry. In all other cases, you use regular ballistic rounds.

[Kalbuth]

The concept of lazing a target being the only way to fire is just dumb. It means it will see very little use.

The player friendly way to do such is a map targeting standard mode with pretty terrible accuracy - its not for pointpoint kills remember - its to put pressure on enemy positions.

See QuakeWars implementation, requiring lase is perfectly playable.

It is imperative that implementation do not lead to frustrating or boring gameplay.
This is where the laser solution comes in, because it requires being on the front, in the action, avoiding boring gameplay, and it will permit immediate retaliation by targets, by simply shooting at the spotter, avoiding frustration.

And real life implementation and expectations should be thrown out of the window. It's a game, not a simulation

[Aractain]

Nice wall of text btw, the TLDR of which is: arty is not used against moving hard targets.

As for WHY we don't want arty to be a kill focused weapon such as a tank or heavy assault infantry is because we want the players who are kill focused to be ON THE FRONT LINE providing content for everyone else there. Focus the firefight for more fun. THEN the people WHO DON'T LIKE the front line will be in other gameplay options such as bombers, artillery, galaxys and other SUPPORT systems.

Requireing a painted targets is ultimately boring for someone who is driving and fireing the artillery. I don't think we want automated artillery turrets like Quake Wars. That just turns it into another kind of gun and not another kind of FUN.

[Traak]

I still like my idea of a nice, big gun that you stand or sit beside, and aim it using good, old-fashioned elevation and windage. If you are a good artilleryman, then you can remember how much elevation it takes to get a certain distance.

With a spotter literally having to call in "50 yards left, 100 forward" or whatever to correct your aim, you still have to turn that into degrees or clicks or Auraxiunits of elevation and traverse.

I say no to lazing any target for artillery. WAY too mindless. With a spotter, you have to communicate and adjust aim manually. Once you are on target, assuming you survive that long, you can FFE, Fire For Effect.

And, again, I can't see why not have artillery incapable of being used in any SOI. It's field use, and field use only. Like any artillery, it would require security and/or a remote location to keep enemy soldiers from just killing the crew.

Perhaps it returns to zero every time you load a rack of ten shells into it. If you remember your settings, you can quickly get back to FFE. I would like to see racks of exposed artillery cartridges, but bigger caliber, like they used to drop in 40mm AA guns.

Under no conditions would it have a sight. It is fire by elevation and traverse only. We don't need 105mm sniper rifles.

[Kalbuth]

I don't think we want automated artillery turrets like Quake Wars. That just turns it into another kind of gun and not another kind of FUN.
Why not? :)
Spotter job is completely different, finding the angle to reach dug in enemies, or lase without being spotted, etc... If you see it as a "kind of gun", well... it makes no sound, can be made difficult to spot, has a rather unpredictable time to kill, well.... it's not going to be a rush in, aim at enemies with your laser, makes "pew pew", and go back in cover ;)
Hardly a gun, if you ask me. And more involving than driving a vehicle, bringing up a map, and clicking on a button, while keeping the frustration out of the victims

[Firefly]

I don't think I want automated artillery turrets like Quake Wars. That just turns it into another kind of gun and not another kind of FUN.
Fixed, reflection indicates personal opinion.

[Aractain]

Actually its more like automated turrets removes a gameplay style and in generaly thats not great (you can still laze targets as well if someone is controling the artillery).

One solution removes half the gmapelay options; why would WE (the non-asshole game community) want that?

[Xyntech]

Shameless self promotion:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37644

I just started that thread in the ideas section about an Engineering Vehicle which would use a Heavy ACE variant to construct larger deployables.

While this wouldn't be an answer to the question of balancing artillery and making it fun, it could be a part of the solution.

Requiring that artillery not only be deployed, but also constructed, as well as being unable to move the artillery after it is built would go a long ways towards reducing it's prevalence. Even better, you could code it so that the artillery was always built standing completely vertical, so no more parking on steep slopes to shoot at a lower angle.

Limit their range (1000m?) to prevent them from being built with too much protection if you want.

How about if the artillery also has something like a cone of fire? If the gunner shoots it without a spotter, they are likely to miss the exact spot by several meters, or even a couple dozen meters. With a spotter, the accuracy could then become %100.

Edit: Also, I'm not advocating that the Engineering Vehicle MUST be able to make artillery. If artillery just proves to be a bad idea, skip it. I think the vehicle has merit in it's own right.

[Firefly]

Actually its more like automated turrets removes a gameplay style and in generaly thats not great (you can still laze targets as well if someone is controling the artillery).

One solution removes half the gmapelay options; why would WE (the non-asshole game community) want that?
I'd rather have a functioning player-controlled artillery piece in the game. That's been my stance from the get-go. As an infantryman I respected, expected and required artillery support where rapid surprise attacks were not possible. If I'm at an interfarm and there's a thousand defenders on the wall with weapons emplacements, heavy firepower and lots of CE, as an attacker I think that - barring 1) enemy incompetence or 2) tactical genius and luck on the part of my team - fire support in the form of CAS, armour and artillery will provide a suitable advantage in gaining a foothold in the base.

Now. If it's NOT implemented, oh well. We the players can work around it. If they compromise and put in automated artillery, then I ca address your statement. Battlefield 2 had a decent system, I feel, that addressed artillery. The mission commander could, if he had the artillery pieces, drop automated artillery. I didn't feel that it removed half the gameplay options.

[boblikesoup]

Indirect fire plays a role in real war and has accounted for over 50% of war-time casualties. If PS is including bombers then artillery might as well make an appearance though it should be limited to not be frustratingly overbearing.

How about this:
Artillery is built in to bases and can be a computer-controlled deployable field placement. Squad leaders can use an ability or mission to target places for the artillery to shoot, kind of like orbital strikes and other games. It will be important to control artillery within ranges of the battle to take advantage of this ability.

[Draep]

Perhaps a big balance consideration for artillery is one of the very arguments people are making against artillery implementation--it's not that fun to sit around and click a button, even as a big group. This alone I think will deter giant bombardments from happening constantly. Even if large outfits put together big artillery sections, they sacrifice numbers that could have been used to man tanks or hold a rifle.

With that said, giving almost everyone access to automatic artillery through CE or tank mounts is a bad idea. This would only create giant, constant barrages at any suspected infantry position, creating the exact scenario that most artillery-deniers picture when they ponder the subject.

Planetside 2 promises that all land will have battle value and I think this will cut down on the boredom of constant base assaults. One of the biggest problems for the flail is that you really only had to fire at the V-bay or some outer base door to get kills and you had infinite range to do so. If the fights aren't centered on bases all the time, artillery could have real value.

This

[Talek Krell]

I don't think we should aim to have something be uncommon due to it being mind numbingly boring. It seems like we could do better than that.

[Redshift]

Indirect fire plays a role in real war and has accounted for over 50% of war-time casualties.

If 50% of the kills in this game are indirect from 2 miles away then the game will fail. end of.

Stop trying to reflect real world war in a game, it doesn't make it fun.

[DviddLeff]

In PS1 the Scorpion tried to have the long range indirect fire method on an infantryman scale; unfortunately it was near impossible to get to grips with.

[mefy]

If 50% of the kills in this game are indirect from 2 miles away then the game will fail. end of.

Stop trying to reflect real world war in a game, it doesn't make it fun.


Because getting in a tank/air vehicle and hunting down the artillery is way too hard and infantry should be able to have LOS on everything that can kill them.

[NapalmEnima]

I don't think we should aim to have something be uncommon due to it being mind numbingly boring. It seems like we could do better than that.

Agreed. SOE has said on several occasions that they don't want minigames... Wrt hacking for example. A completely different control scheme of this one type of weapon probably won't happen.

Thus my argument for remotely controlled arty only.


If 50% of the kills in this game are indirect from 2 miles away then the game will fail. end of.

Stop trying to reflect real world war in a game, it doesn't make it fun.

There are quite a few aspects of Real War we don't want. I agree that 50% casualties is one of them. That whole "1 life" thing, getting maimed, taken prisoner, sleep deprivation, running low on food, water, or ammo, and being wiped out to the last man by something you had no prayer of stopping.

Other things are fun and worth keeping. Defeating your enemies, seeing them driven before you, etc etc.

I think the sounds of incoming rounds and diving for cover as you're being surrounded by Shit Blowing Up is one of the things worth keeping.

To create that, you need people firing the arty in the first place. For people to fire it, they need to have a reasonable expectation that doing so will accomplish something. Or it has to be incredibly easy.

It also needs to not be so effective that it becomes the new rexo/ha/av/med/eng. So I suggest pervasive early warning systems, and countermeasures that are more available and more effective than the arty itself.

And remember that all arty fire would (in my version) depend on someone actively painting their targets. Even your average rifleman could shut down an artillery strike by taking out the forward observer.

Artillery capable of sustained barrages could severely hamper infantry movement in most environments (not in a forest with a decent canopy). That's not much fun, agreed. But the occasional salvo of cluster rounds could really add that "INCOMING" element without hurting the game's Faster Pace. Even a sustained salvo that was precisely detected and displayed could be dealt with and still give that Oh Crap feel, with the whistling of the rounds and the falling and the booming and the flaven.

So the challenge becomes "how do you limit it enough that it doesn't take over, make it effective enough to be used, but not so effective that it becomes the "King of the PS2 Battlefield".

Possible limitations:

Resource-intensive. The weapon and ammo both cost resources, enough so that you won't see it a lot. If you can buy resources at the cash shop, this method of limitation rapidly turns into a "selling power" argument. One I'd actually agree with. Possible to limit it with a type of resource that isn't for sale and is fairly common.
Only available at particular base types and/or towers. A single artillery piece that was the focus of a base would have to be pretty potent, and long ranged. Other bases would need some mostly-effective countermeasures.... not so crazy about this one.
One per base, similar issues.
Deployment limitations (infantry CE only). You can only have one deployed at a time, each one has a limited ammo capacity that cannot be refilled, and you can only deploy one every N minutes. You also put this relatively high up the cert tree so its not available to everyone. A dedicated artillery outfit could probably rain down some serious pain, but would they be more effective per-person if they went in some other direction? Outfit unlocks: More rounds per deployment and/or shorten cooldown. Maybe a type of round only available as an outfit unlock (stealth shells, halves the incoming round warning time, or an EMP round).
If artillery were limited to EMP rounds, they could be much more common and still leave infantry relatively unaffected. Given vehicle speeds and time-to-target, they'd be tough to use. Don't park-n-shell with your tank. Add in sensor rounds, mine scatterers, and flare rounds (for use at night), and things become more interesting. Still kinda dull though. I don't care for this one either.


I think between per-use resource costs and cert timers that are fairly high up the CE tree, you could come up with an artillery system that was fun and not overpowering. Add in some spiffy outfit-level unlocks and you're good to go.

So getting shelled would happen, it wouldn't be all that common... until you ran into a group of folks from a dedicated artillery outfit. Then you'd think "Aw crap, it's the Vanu Artillery Grunt INfection Alleviateors (VAGINA) again! Can't wait to get it stuck in with some of them VAGINAs."

[Kalbuth]

Because getting in a tank/air vehicle and hunting down the artillery is way too hard and infantry should be able to have LOS on everything that can kill them.

Because people play for fun.

Play. Keyword, here.

Btw, having LOS != being able to kill. But it equals being able to know incoming death and avoid it. Not dying randomly. When in a game, you do not have control, you stop playing it.

So yeah, most of the time (<- notice how I didn't say "all the time") you'll have to give infantry LOS and knowledge of their predators. Otherwise, the game will fail. You can dislike that all you want, but people want to play a game.
50% of death coming from unknown source = fail game.

[Baron]

Did BF fail because of arty strikes?

what about COD and air strikes..did that game fail too?

[Kalbuth]

** sigh **
Are 50% of players dying from airstrikes in the game you cite?
Stop assuming I'm against artillery just because I opposed real life analogies which should not be applied to a game
I'm not, I even backed up some proposal here...

[Talek Krell]

Only available at particular base types and/or towers. A single artillery piece that was the focus of a base would have to be pretty potent, and long ranged. Other bases would need some mostly-effective countermeasures.... not so crazy about this one.
I think the way to do that would be to make the range of the gun something like "Within the SoI". That way it would be a defensive benefit rather than being used to shell neighboring bases. The biggest issue, I think, would be determining who gets to use the thing. The best solution I can come up with is to let people with command certs submit fire requests and have the gun just move down the list.

It's worth noting though, the question of who gets to command the gun goes away if the tower/base is one of the outfit owned structures they're hoping to have. That would be a very useful tool for locking down the defense of an area.

[Redshift]

Did BF fail because of arty strikes?

what about COD and air strikes..did that game fail too?

Those are what 32 players?
PS holds hundreds, see what happens if you make a powerful weapon that can sit in safety behind the lines. You'll end up with the amount of spam we got from OS's after everyone had cr5 and that just doesn't make for fun gameplay

[Raka Maru]

In PS1 the Scorpion tried to have the long range indirect fire method on an infantryman scale; unfortunately it was near impossible to get to grips with.

I liked the Scorpion, but was way underpowered.

[Draep]

Indirect fire plays a role in real war and has accounted for over 50% of war-time casualties. If PS is including bombers then artillery might as well make an appearance though it should be limited to not be frustratingly overbearing.

How about this:
Artillery is built in to bases and can be a computer-controlled deployable field placement. Squad leaders can use an ability or mission to target places for the artillery to shoot, kind of like orbital strikes and other games. It will be important to control artillery within ranges of the battle to take advantage of this ability.

Obviously a anti-artillery plant.

[Metalsheep]

A good Cover against artillary fire is already in existance in Planetside.

The Aegis Shield Generator.

If, in planetside 2 there is more conventional artillary, which just scatters over a designated area and isnt as sickeningly powerful as a long range flail shot. Aegis Shields or something similar, maybe without the cloaking, could be the perfect deployable covers to keep infantry safe from barrages of arty fire. Instead of having to charge the generator to get the shield, it automatically is deployed with the shield, and has to be recharged and maintained by an engineer to keep up its protection. Or there could be a new deployable entirely, instead of a full shield, it could just be a top, rooflike covering that shields from incoming shots from above.

To make this work in PS2, they would have to lower the deploy interfearance radius of the Aegis and make multiple Aegis deployable by the same engineer, or get a team of engineers to work togather to make a relativly safe path between shields. Having infantry sprint from cover to cover through the field getting shelled. Sounds pretty awesome to me.

[Raka Maru]

Not to get too off topic, but is there deformable terrain?

Deployable bunkers and trenching would be cool for Engie/grunt skills. This would help with the barrages and allow forward slow progress.

[Sirisian]

Not to get too off topic, but is there deformable terrain?
You know this is odd. I talked with a developer and he mentioned that he's been working for months on terrain. He couldn't say anything else about it, but it's making me wonder if they did something with terrain. Could just be for the towers that drop out of the air and land though. I guess we'll see.

[Graywolves]

Planets should have a moon that is fought over. Whoever has control of the moon gets to occasionally bombard areas on the planet.

But the moon sometimes can't hit certain parts of the planet.

[Raka Maru]

Well if it even remotely resembles BC2 then anyone would be able to stroll the planet and know a battle was just recently fought here. Cratered smokin' landscapes with splintered trees. Scorched napalm smellin' strips of once lush valleys.

Artillery can just leave behind charred stumps for cover.

[MasterChief096]

I honestly don't even see why this is a debate. Lets look at the facts:

1. PlanetSide is an MMO.

In MMOs, a diverse group of gamers appear. Some of them enjoy certain play-styles, others don't. Should artillery not be included because no one enjoys playing artillery and it promotes "boring" gameplay? No, because to someone out there in the MMO gaming community, someone will enjoy being part of an artillery crew, receiving grid references, and releasing a splash.
- PlanetSide needs to attract huge numbers. A lot of RPG guys might simply not like PlanetSide 2 because its too "shooty-shooty". This gives a viable alternative to the proposed faster pace of combat that will exist and give people who aren't epic rape at twitch based aiming an opportunity to be useful to their empire in a non-intensive combat environment. More potential players = win.

2. Oh, but we'll get flooded with RPG playing noobs that suck at this game and completely ruin it!!!!

Not exactly. If you can't see the stupidity in this argument, then why should I even bother trying to open your mind. Unless SOE actively changes the combat system from FPS to some RPG based style of having a hotbar, this is impossible.

3. It promotes boring gameplay.

Umm, how the hell does it promote boring gameplay? Did anyone force you to use a flail in PlanetSide? No. If you don't like artillery, don't use it. Go farm the crew with your reaver if you really want to. I can't see how someone viably makes the claim that it promotes boring gameplay, this claim in itself is a fallacy. First of all, you aren't being forced to play. Secondly, if someone is using the artillery, then obviously they enjoy using it, and aren't bored, which nullifies the claim. It promotes gameplay.

4. Oh, but if there's artillery in the game, then people will be more focused on killing the emplacements than fighting on the frontline and we won't see any frontlines anymore!

Nope. Just plain ol' nope. Firstly, the scale of the game is such that prevents this from happening. Lets take some figurative numbers.

In a theoretical poplock three-way, lets say each side has 500 people. Lets say 50 of them on each side are manning artillery. Wow, that's still 450 people from each faction that are still on the frontline! Amazing! Ok so lets say those 50 people on each side are wreaking havoc on the frontline due to some OP artillery rule sets (though if arty is balanced this won't be an issue). Does everyone leave the frontline to go kill the 50 guys on each side using artillery? Well, if there is a frontline, this can't happen, because each empire's frontline will at least attempt to fight the other side's (I would hope so) instead of just letting them walk through or around them to go and kill the arty. Secondly lets say there are 50 guys on each empire who just love spec ops type missions. They would get a real kick out of sneaking behind enemy lines and hunting down those artillery emplacements (I would). Wait so we're subtracting another 50 from each side? That's still 400 people on each side that are fighting on the frontline. Isn't that like 3.5x the amount of people per EMPIRE in PlanetSide that can be on a continent at anyone time? It sure is amazing out the frontline just entirely dissipated as a result of artillery being in the game!

Quite frankly I think most of the anti-artillery arguments out there revolve around someone having a hard time taking their head out of there ass and becoming a bit more open-minded. Not everyone plays like you. This game doesn't have to be like every other FPS out there will call-in artillery and air strikes. The most realistic thing about PlanetSide (sci-fi setting and technology aside) is the scale and combined arms nature of the gameplay. This is going to appeal to a lot of FPS gamers as well as mil-sim guys as well as people who have just never seen anything like this. Watching 8 flail rounds fly through the sky in PlanetSide is a visual spectacle, and while I disagree with the flail's rule sets, its still a visual spectacle. Get the balance right and BAM! You have functioning artillery that opens up a new playstyle and draws more attention to the game.

This is a global conflict, I severely doubt that these people don't have some sort of artillery systems. Removing artillery is removing a part of that sense that the conflict is on a massive scale. I want to be able to watch a careless squad get eviscerated from a lucky artillery shot because they felt the need to stand 5 inches away from each other for over five minutes.

[Traak]

How about if artillery is only capable of striking from outside any SOI to outside another SOI.

No base, tower, or whatever other facilities spam. This gives the soldiers in the field an option, without some XP magnet like a VPad or such to have to go to and get spamkilled.

[Sirisian]

How about if artillery is only capable of striking from outside any SOI to outside another SOI.
Already suggested with the AA lock-on for artillery shells. Basically a counter-measure to fight back.

[DviddLeff]

I want to see Artillery being used to soften up base defences before a strike; nase walls in particular could be shelled to decent effect. But the entrances and vehicle bay MUST be protected or using shield/anti-artillery devices able to be protected by the players.

[Traak]

Already suggested with the AA lock-on for artillery shells. Basically a counter-measure to fight back.

I did a search of this thread. No one had yet suggested it couldn't fire INTO another SOI, it was only suggested to not fire OUT of an SOI.

[NapalmEnima]

Amen Brother MasterChief! Preach it!

Artillery can be fun for people on both ends of the shell. Just because some people want nothing but infantry battles doesn't mean we should limit all gameplay to that one style. It just means those people should hang out on continent areas where the terrain favors that style (dense forest, chasms, maybe cave networks). Places where its difficult or impossible for ground and air vehicles to go, where artillery rounds are likely-nay-guaranteed to hit something other than their target. In those places, it'll be all infantry (including MAXes). Have a grand time. I'm sure you'll have plenty of company.

But for the rest of us? More (balanced) variety -> more (viable) tactical options -> deeper gameplay -> moar phun.

If you think anything cannot be balanced, you're just not thinking it through. There are dozens of "dials" one can use to adjust the effectiveness of artillery. RoF, damage, range, clip size, reload time, reload availability, damage radius, shell travel time, accuracy, minimum range, detection (availability, how early do folks know about it), countermeasures (availability, effectiveness), deployment time, deployment availability (friendly soi? only on perfectly level ground? etc), durability, crew requirements, cert requirements, resource requirements, ammo types

And that's just me (not a professional game designer) thinking and typing for a couple minutes. I came up with 22 different attributes of artillery that could be twiddled to get the balance right. I suspect there are several different combinations of values that would make "good" artillery (by which I mean balanced, fun to use, exciting to be on the receiving end of, etc)

[Sirisian]

I did a search of this thread. No one had yet suggested it couldn't fire INTO another SOI, it was only suggested to not fire OUT of an SOI.
This post. (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?p=600037#post600037)

[Raka Maru]

Arty should be able to fire anywhere that's not shielded. Sooooo, if the veh pad needs protection, a shield should be active not nerfing artillery.

Artillery is death from above. The only way to avoid it is cover or well shot AA rounds.

[Graywolves]

I like artillery.



Continue discussion.

[Traak]

We've moved beyond Civil War cannons and towed field guns (though we still use field artillery). We now have this marvelous invention called self-propelled artillery, with enormous tank-like creations such as the Paladin and the Crusader. Exposing crew for the sake of exposing crew and for the sake of balance is dumb, considering that a number of more relevant balances have been proposed.

I didn't want a flail analogue. And I actually really like the idea of big field artillery that is deployed, with the back legs and all.

And I went to the entire page that your link took me to, Sirisian. Can you just quote where someone said no gun emplacements that are set up in an SOI?

[Sirisian]

I did a search of this thread. No one had yet suggested it couldn't fire INTO another SOI, it was only suggested to not fire OUT of an SOI.

And I went to the entire page that your link took me to, Sirisian. Can you just quote where someone said no gun emplacements that are set up in an SOI?
I'm confused. I was talking about using AA and base defenses to shoot down artillery rounds before they impacted a target. Like this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDMXkPfxjOc#t=1m54s). pew pew

I want artillery in an SOI. That seems like a safe place to put them. Personally with AA and the ability for planes to use their AA missiles on artillery rounds that should be enough of a protection.

[Traak]

I want artillery in an SOI. That seems like a safe place to put them. Personally with AA and the ability for planes to use their AA missiles on artillery rounds that should be enough of a protection.

Oh. I figured by keeping artillery and targeting outside the SOI, we would make it more of an open-field battle thing, not a base-to-Vpad flail fest. This would require lots of dynamic targeting, as people in the open are not stuck at a vehicle pad, or anywhere else. When everyone scatters after you drop one shell in an area, you have to find another target.

Unlike the park-at-the-silo, tape-the-button-down flail spammage of yore, while flail pilot goes and plays WoW on another computer.

Artillery that has to be actively re-tasked over and over, it becomes more dynamic and exciting, as opposed to the flail, which was one of the most boredom-inducing things in the game, no matter which side of it you were on.

[Raka Maru]

Nerfing artillery by not letting it hit the ground in SOI or anywhere there is open sky or ground is not the way to balance it. Might as well put a dome over every base and tower.

[Talek Krell]

I wonder what would happen if you dropped the party requirement and made it so that anyone could laze an artillery target...

[Sirisian]

I wonder what would happen if you dropped the party requirement and made it so that anyone could laze an artillery target...
I'd imagine you'd lose incentive for players to put it so their squad could use it. However, you bring up a good point on locking. Remember in PS1 how you could lock a vehicle to no one, your squad, anyone. Could open that up. I mean if you got experience for other people using it that would be beneficial.

Not sure how to manage that. You pull out your laze and it just lets you use any artillery that's open for use. Open for abuse maybe with a lot of people using them. What stops someone from just wasting all the artillery shots they have access to in the area?

[Talek Krell]

I'm considering a manned setup that can receive requests from a much larger group of people. A constant flow of fire support requests would go a long way toward making it rewarding to crew an artillery piece.

[Raka Maru]

How about if laze guy gets points if any artillery hits his target?

[Traak]

Nerfing artillery by not letting it hit the ground in SOI or anywhere there is open sky or ground is not the way to balance it. Might as well put a dome over every base and tower.

I just don't want door/pad/deck spam. I want targets that are not locked down like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Xyntech]

The different laz targets could obviously be colored differently depending on if the person was in your squad, in your outfit or just some random dude. I like the idea of giving some points to whoever painted the target that you shoot at.

I still think it would help balance if the artillery was pretty inaccurate when fired without a painted target, but became pinpoint accurate when you do have a spotter.

Considering that sometimes you may want to have a little bit of area of affect, maybe you could use the mouse wheel to scroll how large your cone of fire was, bigger or smaller, when you were aiming at a painted target. Anywhere between 100% accuracy and your usual full sized non painted target CoF.

I think artillery should be forced to fire at an extremely vertical angle. Getting hit by artillery, it should always become almost straight down on top of you. No danger from artillery if you have some decent roof coverage.

[Traak]

More accurate physics in the AOE for the artillery splash would be welcome, too. If I'm behind a 6' tall solid concrete structure, artillery that hits the opposite side shouldn't harm me unless it blows up the structure.

T-walls FTW!

[Raka Maru]

The different laz targets could obviously be colored differently depending on if the person was in your squad, in your outfit or just some random dude. I like the idea of giving some points to whoever painted the target that you shoot at.

I still think it would help balance if the artillery was pretty inaccurate when fired without a painted target, but became pinpoint accurate when you do have a spotter.

Considering that sometimes you may want to have a little bit of area of affect, maybe you could use the mouse wheel to scroll how large your cone of fire was, bigger or smaller, when you were aiming at a painted target. Anywhere between 100% accuracy and your usual full sized non painted target CoF.

I think artillery should be forced to fire at an extremely vertical angle. Getting hit by artillery, it should always become almost straight down on top of you. No danger from artillery if you have some decent roof coverage.

Different types of shells would help here also. Like the lib ammo. Maybe throw in some incendiary rounds and emp overhead bursts.

[Raka Maru]

I just don't want door/pad/deck spam. I want targets that are not locked down like shooting fish in a barrel.

A deployed shield generator already solves this problem. It could use some tweaks tho to allow self reenergizing and deployment on buildings for air pads. Buff the angis to be able to withstand steady onslaught of a single artillery unit.

[Graywolves]

Revived for poll.

[VioletZero]

For once, poll results on this forum surprise me.

The more I thought about it, the more I wanted Artillery in.

Although I'd be fine without it.

[ratfusion]

The flail gets a lot of hate, it had issues when it was used at close range before the range/damage nerf/buff. It may have gotten worse after I was out of the game.

That said I still remember having a fantastic time with a squad set up for artillery. 2-3 flails, 2 AA and bunch of infils lazing targets in a sector wide area is a blast. Hunting down BFRs, AMS's and turning the tide on base sieges was a blast.

Very satisfying as an infil watching the hidden AMS you stumbled across meet its inevitable doom!

I don't remember it being game breaking, and you only get pissed off at it if you were stupid enough to keep walking out the door that was facing oncoming flail fire. If your vehicle pad is being spammed you just needed to spawn at a base further behind lines and pull a reaver / lib to go hunting.

I just don't understand the people complaining about it ruining their time. It wasn't hard to dodge.

[Warborn]

Good thing this stuff doesn't work as a democracy.

[Grognard]

If yes, then -> must... have... counter-battery fire! :mad:

[Hmr85]

I'm fine with Artillery. I just believe it just needs to be done right. Player mortars imo. That way you can reach out touch the person who is shelling your base compared to feeling defenseless to some guy sitting across the map in another facility shelling you.

[VioletZero]

If yes, then -> must... have... counter-battery fire! :mad:

If people can easily fire back at you, there's literally no point in playing an artillery.

[BigBossMonkey]

Straight up artillery? No.

I'd like to see a larger a cannon for the MBTs that could function as a longer range attack vehicle.

[Graywolves]

Tank artillery with the other gun as AA.


Fun?

[LZachariah]

I haven't given this too much thought, but I would cast my vote as "no artillery." I agree with Basti that it's not very fun to just let a weapon continue firing while you sit back and...let it fire o.O This is one reason that they changed the Liberator from a bomber to a gunship; it's basically performing the same function (ie- bombarding the ground) but it's more "active" to point at a target and fire a gun than just push a "drop bombs" button over and over. Not only that, artillery can be hampering and also griefing. I think there will be plenty of shelling and bombardment from Liberators, tanks, and fighter jets.

[SKYeXile]

This pole is worthless, it does not represent what people want, simply what the people on this forum want, given that alot of people, mainly veteran players from some of the more prestigious outfits don't even post here or read these forums because of the complete retardation of approximately 66% of the posters.

[Graywolves]

This pole is worthless, it does not represent what people want, simply what the people on this forum want, given that alot of people, mainly veteran players from some of the more prestigious outfits don't even post here or read these forums because of the complete retardation of approximately 66% of the posters.

People on this forum are the only ones that matter.

[VioletZero]

This pole is worthless, it does not represent what people want, simply what the people on this forum want, given that alot of people, mainly veteran players from some of the more prestigious outfits don't even post here or read these forums because of the complete retardation of approximately 66% of the posters.

When poll results disagree with you: Flawed poll.

When poll results agree with you: The people have spoken.

Such is the forum :3

[Sirisian]

This pole is worthless, it does not represent what people want
Interesting. The problem I see with the poll was always that it doesn't represent what type of artillery people want to see. There is an outspoken group that hated the Flail (myself included) and those that want a line of sight solution involving lasers among other ideas. The reason the poll might not be useful is because the people saying no to it don't like the Flail's implementation. I think we'd see a lot more yes votes if people were allowed to specify what they want.

The original concept of allowing AA to shoot down tactical artillery and other limitations and such are really left out of a yes or no poll.

[Graywolves]

Indirect fire is a playstyle that makes the battlefield more dynamic.

The discussion should be to remove the playstyle but to make it work and be enjoyable.

[Grognard]

This pole is worthless, it does not represent what people want, simply what the people on this forum want, given that alot of people, mainly veteran players from some of the more prestigious outfits don't even post here or read these forums because of the complete retardation of approximately 66% of the posters.

LOL, I see what ya did there :)

[Hermes]

Bit late to read through all the pages, so I won't add anything too much in case it's been covered.

I'd like to see artillery made to work though. Whoever mentioned it adds to the epic feel is spot on, as long as it doesn't instagib you. Suppression effects and your health being whittled a bit by shells adds to the atmosphere, scores the firer some supporting xp and a kill here or there. :D

[JHendy]

Oh. I figured by keeping artillery and targeting outside the SOI, we would make it more of an open-field battle thing, not a base-to-Vpad flail fest. This would require lots of dynamic targeting, as people in the open are not stuck at a vehicle pad, or anywhere else. When everyone scatters after you drop one shell in an area, you have to find another target.

Unlike the park-at-the-silo, tape-the-button-down flail spammage of yore, while flail pilot goes and plays WoW on another computer.

Artillery that has to be actively re-tasked over and over, it becomes more dynamic and exciting, as opposed to the flail, which was one of the most boredom-inducing things in the game, no matter which side of it you were on.

I wish more people saw it the way you do.

I'm all for artillery, as long as it's done like this.

[Grognard]

Well, it could be worse than the Flail, I suppose... we could always discuss the faithful implementation of a futuristic Excalibur... LOL. Talk about screaming bloody murder...
Excalibur GPS Guided Artillery Round - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m34eZF3Bsk)


...or, how 'bout we just do an MLRS platform...
MLRS Cluster Munition Effects - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMShVkgvQEs&feature=related)
( Flail is lookin' perty good right about now eh? LOL )


Oh, and if we are going to do the multi-soldier artillery implementation, who wants to be the loader? He is required, right? Coupla hours o' that? Coolio!
US Marines M777 Howitzer 155mm in Afghanistan - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCXqcBpURZE&feature=related)

[polywomple]

I'll allow it only if they make it extremely difficult to deploy.

For instance, you will have the find the keys to the vehicle which randomly (and cleverly) spawn at some location of the base; and once you've found them, you have 1 minute to run back to your artillery vehicle before it deconstructs and explodes (including you)

If you succeed and deploy, you have to engage in a minigame of tic-tac-toe with purrfectstorm before each shot. If you lose the minigame, you will explode (but not the vehicle)

[Grognard]

I'll allow it only if they make it extremely difficult to deploy.

For instance, you will have the find the keys to the vehicle which randomly (and cleverly) spawn at some location of the base; and once you've found them, you have 1 minute to run back to your artillery vehicle before it deconstructs and explodes (including you)

If you succeed and deploy, you have to engage in a minigame of tic-tac-toe with purrfectstorm before each shot. If you lose the minigame, you will explode (but not the vehicle)

...and the "gun" should be cleverly disguised in a phallic shape, complete with ballz, I mean wheels, yes wheels... :lol:

[Shade Millith]

Oh. I figured by keeping artillery and targeting outside the SOI, we would make it more of an open-field battle thing, not a base-to-Vpad flail fest. This would require lots of dynamic targeting, as people in the open are not stuck at a vehicle pad, or anywhere else. When everyone scatters after you drop one shell in an area, you have to find another target.

Unlike the park-at-the-silo, tape-the-button-down flail spammage of yore, while flail pilot goes and plays WoW on another computer.

Artillery that has to be actively re-tasked over and over, it becomes more dynamic and exciting, as opposed to the flail, which was one of the most boredom-inducing things in the game, no matter which side of it you were on.

Which is what I've been saying.

30 seconds between shot, 4 shots to a 3-4 minute reload (Button cannot be held down to refire). Useless as a spam base weapon. Excellent as squad Fire-Support.
ATV like armor. Any passing aircraft can kill it within 3-4 rockets. And completely stationary. Aircraft finds it, it is literally free XP.
Shells it fires are highly visible, makes tracking them back to the source easy.

I agree with not being allowed to deploy within SOI, hadn't even thought of that. It should have to exit any safety a base brings.

[VioletZero]

The poll is exactly a 2:1 ratio. That's kind of funny. :3

[Raka Maru]

Always loved hunting down flails when they cause trouble. Jack/deconstruct... Good fun. Almost never guarded, except for organized squads that stay behind the lines.

I'm for having artillery, it spices things up.

Tho I like to wind up the MCG and put on max suits, there are times I just like to do menial things and stay away from the meat grinder.

This game should be playable by any style you want to waste your time with.

[Jimmuc]

i would rather have fixed artillery than an SPG. i find arty to be a good addition as it adds another playstyle (one that i might do once in a while) and it makes you more aware of what to expect in an fight. besides this is a damn WAR!!!

[Espion]

No for me as it promotes boring game play.

Apparently lots of people like getting easy kills without fighting. Big surprise there!

[VioletZero]

Apparently lots of people like getting easy kills without fighting. Big surprise there!

You make it sound like there's no effort or skill involved.

[Espion]

You make it sound like there's no effort or skill involved.

Because there isn't.

[Graywolves]

Because there isn't.

It's a different playstyle

[Espion]

A non-playing playstyle.

[VioletZero]

Because there isn't.

Oh yes, because you've played artillery and are just as good as the people who have been doing it for years after the first hour.

[SKYeXile]

Oh yes, because you've played artillery and are just as good as the people who have been doing it for years after the first hour.

I can't see why and body wouldn't be....it's not like you need to be at the keyboard..

[VioletZero]

I can't see why and body wouldn't be....it's not like you need to be at the keyboard..

How poorly implemented was the Flail in the last game anyway?

It should definitely require skill to do right.

[Grognard]

what you do is make artillery a regular veh cert,eliminate any need for mods(which we have been told aren't in the game)and give artillery the ability for rapid counter battery like a map symbol or some other designator that gives them the ability to counter battery any artillery strike,that ends camping because you are going to have to "shoot and scoot" or die.

About time I find someone else making this point! Counter-battery fire is what fixes a lot of these issues... Let the cannon-cockers duel it out... they'll govern themselves. The good ones will be unable to spam, because they know they only have a short time before they themselves are lit up...

On top of that, there should be ammo concerns, big guns = big rounds. They will need to pack up, and go for ammo, unless its brought to them. If they stay in proximity to a Sunderer, then they jeapordize it by the imminent incomming counter-battery fire.

Believe me, there will be dedicated artillerists, who spend their time hunting enemy artillery batteries...


Sample Implementation (just basics...):

Basic Gunnery:
a. Spotter required, Barrage only, Primary Check Fire round required before Fire For Effect, 20s reload/solution cooldown.
b. Each (any) salvo, 100% chance to produce a revealed icon on map.
c. Counter-Battery Fire on map coordinates (click Icon, simple), accuracy - medium, target aquisition 30 seconds.
d. This Ammo type capacity = 25 salvos.
e. Total ammo aggregate 25 salvos.

Note: You can run like hell if you see a check fire round... check fire round timer is 3-5 seconds delay for FFE (spotter confirm time), OR Check Fire Round can be inaccurate, and need to be adjusted, but with extra-game voice programs I prefer the built in delay simulation.


Advanced Gunnery:
a. Basic, plus laser guided AT (AV...) capability, 30s reload/solution cooldown.
b. Each (any) salvo, 75% chance to produce a revealed icon on map.
c. Counter-Battery Fire on map coordinates (click Icon, simple), accuracy - good, target aquisition 20 seconds.
d. Ammo type change over = 15s cooldown.
e. This Ammo type capacity = 10 salvos.

Note: Laser guidance is, of course, a spotter, and must continue to paint.


Elite Gunnery:
a. Advanced, plus GPS guided smart round, 60s reload/solution cooldown.
b. Each (any) salvo, 50% chance to produce a revealed icon on map.
c. Counter-Battery Fire on map coordinates (click Icon, simple), accuracy - high, target aquisition 10 seconds.
d. Ammo type change over = 10s cooldown.
e. This Ammo type capacity = 10 salvos.

Note: Spotter marks target, and need not paint (only GPS), new target means loss of first, round inbound re-aquire causes disarm.


Possible upgrades:
1. Ammo overfill, +10 salvos overfill (general capacity).
2. Prototype electronics, reload/solution time reduction by 5 seconds.
3. Veteran Crew, ammo change over time reduction 5 seconds.
4. Hunter Specialist, enemy artillery reveal detection +10%
5. Range enhancing charges, +25% Range (or varies by gunnery level).


Edit: 5th upgrade, and ammo-type capacities, CBF clarification (cooldown = aquisition time)

[Espion]

How poorly implemented was the Flail in the last game anyway?

It should definitely require skill to do right.

Deploy in friendly base, personal waypoint enemy base, tape down left mouse button, go afk. That's how you flailed in PS1. Flails also had tank-like HP

[SKYeXile]

Deploy in friendly base next to repair facility, personal waypoint enemy base, tape down left mouse button, go afk. That's how you flailed in PS1. Flails also had tank-like HP

fixed.

[VioletZero]

Deploy in friendly base, personal waypoint enemy base, tape down left mouse button, go afk. That's how you flailed in PS1. Flails also had tank-like HP

There's no reason for that really.

=\

Also, artillery should not function in friendly bases.

About time I find someone else making this point! Counter-battery fire is what fixes a lot of these issues..

Allowing people to fire back at artillery also breaks the profession.

This is not a good fix and would make it essentially useless. Want to kill an Artillery? It's really easy, just get close to them or use aircraft.

If the Artillery is well designed, they should be soft targets.

[Grognard]

Allowing people to fire back at artillery also breaks the profession.

At first, I thought you were joking, but you aren't.

[Hamma]

People are so stuck on the flail mentality there will never be a constructive argument among PS1 vets. Similar to the BFR but the flail was much less game breaking.

Indirect fire is a playstyle that makes the battlefield more dynamic.

The discussion should be to remove the playstyle but to make it work and be enjoyable.

This Exactly!!

Because there isn't.

A non-playing playstyle.

If you have nothing to contribute then don't post.

[Mastachief]

PS1 Artillery (flail) was broken

In PS2 it could be done better but personally i don't like the idea. Orbital strikes and perfect in my opinion otherwise you end up with WW1 style constant artillery bombardments we no easy counter.

I could see a place for mortars in game but i would like them to be difficult to use effectively.

[Checowsky]

Fine Hamma.

Have you played world of tanks and been driving along attempting to have fun when you get one shot by arty that you can't see and therefore couldn't counter due to the fact you didn't know it was coming as you cannot guess an arties placement and, of course, you can't see it coming.

That is the kind of indirect yet powerful gameplay style that feels cheap. That player puts in little effort for a big gain with very little thought put into the process. Artillery in RTS games is a powerful destructive tool that is always an expensive earned power, not something you can just pull and use.

I would personally be for removing it all together but if its in the game it needs to have some heavy restrictions placed upon it purely for the reason that its cheap and has a lot of power. There is also no counter that, in heavy fighting, will make it to said flail to kill it without a lot of effort. Recalling and doing an os to kill one tank is not a good counter.

[Figment]

WoT artillery is very different from PS artillery though. It is actually mostly counterable by experience in using artillery and therefore knowing the likely spots and more importantly, knowing the likely deadzone angles from different directions. What it does do is make players annoyed as they feel they have no way to fight back directly. (Strangely, a Maus you can't damage you can at least fire blanks at and this is perfectly fine to some players in that game, which I can't understand because that's far less competitive). Basically, artillery in WoT is to me what snipers are in PlanetSide: simply be aware of where they might be hunting and take out their eyes by taking out their scouts before moving into - or rather, through - their killing zone. Then you should hardly get hit unless you are slow and big.

Artillery in WoT is predictable because their positoning options are limited: they have to sit far behind the front line to avoid getting spotted and dieing instantly. Being able to have a RTS top view perspective or not makes a huge difference as well.

Anyway, forget WoT, cause that type of artillery does not fit and has no bearing on PlanetSide, where you cannot predict artillery locations as easily and the maps are too large to remember the deadzones. Not to mention that birds eye view of PS zone combat would be way overpowered.



Let's say we look at some other forms of artillery. How about mortar fire in FarCry 2, that's also a form of ballistic artillery, but I'd say it's a pretty skill demanding aiming thing there and works completely different. It's relatively front line, inaccurate and very intuitive.

Far Cry 2 - Mortar action - YouTube

In fact, this is very similar in gameplay to PlanetSide's Scorpion really.


This is a type of artillery that is based on trial and error. Of course the explosion radius and accuracy would have to be under discussion. The problem is, would spamming this in mass numbers as players could in PS2 in theory use thousand mortars at once with free class changing and having a mass playerbase be improving gameplay?

How badly would the game be impacted if we'd get 1 person to fire mortars? How bad if it were 5 to 12 people, let alone whole outfits bombarding a base with mortar fire meaning up to 60 people in a single fight?

Would this really be fun for the one being bombarded? I think that's the most important question here: would artillery be used en mass (YES) and what would happen next (OUCH)?

[Checowsky]

FIGGY!


Dramatic Chipmunk - YouTube



WoT Artillery example was more a show of how lame and cheap Arty can be, I didn't compare PS Arty to it as, well read your own dam post.

The RTS point was about how other games restrict the power of arty due to its hand of god like power to removing things from an area and replacing them with a nice hole.

I wasn't comparing at any point beyond arguing that this isn't a gameplay style, its lame, and its not hard. To those who say it is you are just plain lying, a basic knowledge of battlefield layout instantly means you can use arty.

[moosepoop]

artillery in ps2 should have ability to supress and disorient players, but have little killing power unless its point blank, with tiny aoe , but large supressing effect.

it should also have tiny ammo.

[Figment]

Not the chipmunk! D:

[Espion]

If you have nothing to contribute then don't post.

I'm contributing about as much to this conversation as artillery does to gameplay.

[Graywolves]

Fine Hamma.

Have you played world of tanks and been driving along attempting to have fun when you get one shot by arty that you can't see and therefore couldn't counter due to the fact you didn't know it was coming as you cannot guess an arties placement and, of course, you can't see it coming.

That is the kind of indirect yet powerful gameplay style that feels cheap. That player puts in little effort for a big gain with very little thought put into the process. Artillery in RTS games is a powerful destructive tool that is always an expensive earned power, not something you can just pull and use.

I would personally be for removing it all together but if its in the game it needs to have some heavy restrictions placed upon it purely for the reason that its cheap and has a lot of power. There is also no counter that, in heavy fighting, will make it to said flail to kill it without a lot of effort. Recalling and doing an os to kill one tank is not a good counter.



Countering WoT artillery = Seeing if Arty is in the game + keeping something between you and their base/arty spots.

Avoiding getting killed by Arty is rediculously easy. If you need to stop in an open field, back up 10 meters and wow they miss.

Then you get a game with no arty and wonder why the Tank Destroyers are being aggressive and raking up 7 kills.




Going AFK with your artillery firing in one spot shouldn't be effective, people would just go through between shots or someone would pick you off anyways.

Artillery doesn't need to be implemented the same way as before or as any other game.



But denying a playstyle just because you don't like it is not suitable for a discussion in an MMO. And it does make the battle a little more interesting. Another thing to be wary of, another thing to attempt to take out.

[SKYeXile]

Yea you cant really compare arty in WOT to arty in an FPS. to hit a target on the move in wot requires some decent prediction, also you have keep moving after you fire or you risk getting countered, not to mention you're extremely vulnerable to scouts and anything else that manges to get a shot on you. also you have limited ammo.

atry in an FPS...well SPAM AWAY! go go infantry kills as they walk out of a door.

[polywomple]

What if the artillery projectile made a sound? Like an advance warning before it actually hits, the player can hear it coming which gives them the power to avoid it. So it would be the players fault if he died

If I recall, the libby bombs made noise as they traveled down. Not long enough to avoid it really, but im sure it could be adjusted

[Checowsky]

Did any of you read my second post.... I never compared them in the original, I was showing an example of lame.

[Shade Millith]

Have you played world of tanks and been driving along attempting to have fun when you get one shot by arty that you can't see and therefore couldn't counter due to the fact you didn't know it was coming as you cannot guess an arties placement and, of course, you can't see it coming.


I keep telling myself that I need to just leave this argument, as it will never go anywhere. But I need to point something out.

WoT's artillery has nothing to do with PS artillery.

WoT's artillery hits it's target within a second. PS artillery takes 10-20.

WoT's artillery gets a LIVE VISUAL birds eye view of the target. PS artillery doesn't.

WoT's artillery doesn't require any effort from the rest of the team. PS artillery at least requires coordination.

Thus, WoT's artillery is very capable of hitting a moving tank by watching where the enemy tank (Using it's magic flying sky camera) is going to be in 1 second time to lead the shot. PS artillery cannot see the target, and would have to somehow predict 10-20 seconds into the future.

PS artillery would be for hitting entrenched targets. Not active vehicles/infantry.

Nothing at all alike. This is a bad comparison.

There is also no counter that, in heavy fighting, will make it to said flail to kill it without a lot of effort.

Don't want Flail, Flail was bad, poorly designed base spammable thing. Want a properly designed artillery weapon for field Fire-Support.

Forget about the blasted Flail.

[Shade Millith]

Yea you cant really compare arty in WOT to arty in an FPS. to hit a target on the move in wot requires some decent prediction, also you have keep moving after you fire or you risk getting countered, not to mention you're extremely vulnerable to scouts and anything else that manges to get a shot on you. also you have limited ammo.

Now I KNOW you're screwing with me.

to hit a target on the move in wot requires some decent prediction

WoT's artillery hits it's target within a second. PS artillery takes 10-20.

WoT's artillery gets a LIVE VISUAL birds eye view of the target. PS artillery doesn't.

Thus, WoT's artillery is very capable of hitting a moving tank by watching where the enemy tank (Using it's magic flying sky camera) is going to be in 1 second time to lead the shot. PS artillery cannot see the target, and would have to somehow predict 10-20 seconds into the future.

Which one is more likely to hit a moving vehicle? WoT's. Which one is damn near impossible to hit a moving target? PS Artillery.

also you have keep moving after you fire or you risk getting countered

And this wouldn't happen in PS too? How does this magically NOT happen in PS?

not to mention you're extremely vulnerable to scouts and anything else that manges to get a shot on you.

This goes just as much for a good balanced PS2 artillery, except there's also aircraft to counter.

also you have limited ammo.

If it can't deploy in a base SOI, then the PS artillery would have even LESS ammo than WoT's.


atry in an FPS...well SPAM AWAY! go go infantry kills as they walk out of a door.

30 second ROF and 4 minute reload after 5 shots. With maybe 15 ammunition total.

Oh so very spamable.

[SKYeXile]

lol no point in arguing with you, you're whole argument and counter to any of mine is based off a fictional vehicle that does not exist, if i say anything you pull something out of your ass and then try a smoke and mirror is as something else. eg, I say arty in wot takes skill to aim, you say..YES BUT MY ARTY TAKES MORE SKILL BECAUSE YOU CANT SEE YOUR TARGET AND THE SHOTS TAKE 20 SECONDS FLIGHT...news flash buddy, it takes less because you're not aiming, you're randomly spamming then. Also the fact that you think arty in wots isn't a team effort just proves you have no idea wtf you're talking about....they need spotters you know?

Also you're dissecting posts and taking my posts out of context and not even thinking your entire posts through...ARTY IN PS2 WOULD HAVE EVEN LESS AMMO THAN ARTY IN WOT BECAUSE THEY NEED TO DEPLOY OUTSIDE AN SOE...unless of course they parked next to a sunderer...i await your counter argument: "OH BUT NO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RESUPPLY WHEN USING MY FICTIONAL ARTY...YOU WOULD...HAVE TO...UMM...DIE?...GET A NEW ONE?

[Shade Millith]

lol no point in arguing with you, you're whole argument and counter to any of mine is based off a fictional vehicle that does not exist

And there's no point in arguing with you, because your entire argument is based around either the Flail being poorly designed, or there being no adjusting to get the desired effect.

I've given idea's for a vehicle that will not operate like the flail did, but will give artillery. Useless for base spammage (which was the biggest problem with the flail), and easily destroyed by anything that finds it (which was the second biggest, too much armor).

I say arty in wot takes skill to aim, you say..

And I say it's designed to be used against moving tanks.

YES BUT MY ARTY TAKES MORE SKILL BECAUSE YOU CANT SEE YOUR TARGET AND THE SHOTS TAKE 20 SECONDS FLIGHT...news flash buddy, it takes less because you're not aiming, you're randomly spamming then.

That's the whole point. You have a laser designator to say "I want a shell here", then said shell arrives 10-20 seconds later. That is not 'Randomly spamming'.

This isn't supposed to be something that hits moving targets. I've done it before in PS1. I got into a flail and used it as squad firesupport. You can't hit moving vehicles/infantry, but vehicles/infantry that are entrenched in are what you're used for.

There is no 'random spamming'. Randomly spamming will get you nowhere. You are required to work together with at least a second person to do anything. That is unlike -

Also the fact that you think arty in wots isn't a team effort just proves you have no idea wtf you're talking about....they need spotters you know?

Your 'spotters' are completely automatic. As soon as someone comes in sight range of an enemy, the artillery will see it. No communication necessary, nor is it even beneficial.

Then it aims ITSELF with a magic skycamera and magic reticle, with a weapon that is designed to be able to hit moving targets.

That's about as much teamwork as grabbing a tank and driving up the enemy's backside yourself.

unless of course they parked next to a sunderer

Then if this is a problem, then here's an idea... do BALANCING OF THE VEHICLE. Make it so they can't.

If there's a problem with it, you FIX the problem by adjusting the vehicle.

If a tank does too much damage, you reduce the damage. If a rifle fires too quickly, reduce the ROF. If a grenade has too large a AOE, then reduce the AOE. If an aircraft is too fast, reduce the speed. If a vehicle becomes overpowered because it can get ammunition too easily, REDUCE THE EASE OF GETTING AMMO.

Also you're dissecting posts

, if i say anything you pull something out of your ass and then try a smoke and mirror is as something else

I'm taking the time and effort to grab each individual issue, and post a reply to each of them. Unlike some, I'm not going to generalize an entire post.

My 'smoke and mirror' is posting a rebuttal to your posts? Shocking.

[SKYeXile]

My entire argument against artillery is that the artillery and anybody been targeted by said artillery are not directly engaged with each other, it creates a problem in gameplay since anybody killed from atry simply feels cheated because they cant see their enemy. Not to mention it creates rather bland gameplay for both partys, even given an unlimited number of visual ques for incoming arty fire, all the player can do is defend themselves, they no way of immediately engaging the artillery.

it does not matter how you change arty if it has 5 hp or 5000, a 1 second travel time or 3 hour, if it has 1 ammo or 10000 or where it can fire from, aslong as its not visible or its not in line of sight of its target then its a problem in a skill based FPS setting and is obviously why its not in PS2.

[Shade Millith]

My entire argument against artillery is that the artillery and anybody been targeted by said artillery are not directly engaged with each other, it creates a problem in gameplay since anybody killed from atry simply feels cheated because they cant see their enemy. Not to mention it creates rather bland gameplay for both partys, even given an unlimited number of visual ques for incoming arty fire, all the player can do is defend themselves, they no way of immediately engaging the artillery. .

Ok, now I'm understanding your direction.

Honestly, I think both of us should just stop arguing. We're NOT going to agree on this in any way, shape or form. And by now, I think we're just spamming the thread (AND other 'Artillery' threads) with the same arguments for both For and Against.

I think it would be an interesting addition to a Combined Arms genre.
You think it would be a bland and uninteresting part of a FPS genre.

Let's just go with that.

[Captain1nsaneo]

For those of you still reading and interested about the fail mechanics in PS allow me to be of service.

The flail is an Ancient Tech (AT) vehicle and thus can only be gotten when you have the mod for AT vehicles installed for your bases. This normally means that when one side has them the other side does not. When released they had a ton of armor and their shots did the same damage regardless of distance traveled. Then came a nerf because people would just sit them on hills and fire them into doorways.

The nerf did the following: Reduced armor; limited the angle of fire to be higher; reduced the max range; and made the projectiles do more damage the farther they travel. At point blank a flail can't kill a softy.

People have said in this thread that the flail takes no skill. I could equally say that HA and the Reaver take no skill but it's all just hyperbole by people who don't like how the tools affect the fight.

To use the flail normally you want to setup somewhere safe and that doesn't have any hills, trees, or other obstacles between your shots and where you're predicting your targets to be. Next would be to have someone near the target use a laze pointer to mark a target for you. This will produce a yellow way point in the sky with these arrows pointing out the spot where you need to fire to hit the target. The waypoint doesn't last long but there's nothing stopping you from continuing to fire at that point. It should be noted that personal waypoints do NOT produce the arrows and so if you are using a personal waypoint to aim you'll need to walk your shots up and down it until you find the rough area that gives you the most kills. Squad waypoints produce the arrows but they're off by being too low down and shooting at them will land the flail rounds shy of their target.

The main threats to the Fail are aircraft and OS's which easily can find you thanks to the giant loud rainbow like shot the flail produces. Can't do much about being OSed but Reavers and Liberators you have a prayer against. You can shoot them while they're attacking you but the chances of you winning that duel are close to nil. In most cases it's better to just run in which case the armor you do have comes in real handy. Cloakers can be annoying but if you keep your eyes and ears open they're easily dealt with. Mainly by once again running away... and then running them over.

Flails don't get to see the carnage they're wreaking but they often get to hear it from their friends who are lazing for them. The only flaw with the system is that a laze user must be in platoon and doesn't get a cut of the kills similar to how a pilot does for their gunners.

[DayOne]

an interesting addition to a Combined Arms genre.

This is exactly why it should be in the game. Other FPS games don't have it because it cannot be used effectively. With PS2's large and consistent battlefield artillery, if designed and balanced properly, would just be a good addition to the game as it adds more depth to the battle system.

[Sirisian]

My entire argument against aircraft is that the aircraft and anybody been targeted by said aircraft are not directly engaged with each other, it creates a problem in gameplay since anybody killed from air simply feels cheated because they cant see their enemy. Not to mention it creates rather bland gameplay for both partys, even given an unlimited number of visual ques for incoming arty fire, all the player can do is defend themselves, they no way of immediately engaging the aircraft.
I think those changes I made to what you said work for most infantry types in the game. Basically what the changes are reflecting is that players are always going to feel the threat of different vehicles in the game that they aren't necessarily going to defend themselves against if they aren't well equipped. However, with the option of allowing artillery to be shot out of the air this allows for a defense as you mentioned. The offense is killing the person lasing target or killing the vehicle itself. Two different ways. Infiltrators could use explosives on such targets.

If artillery is seen as a player's vehicle then that player pulls the vehicle and sets it up. The player then puts themselves in harms to target a location allowing an enemy to attack. The artillery then is very similar to launching a dumb-fire rocket launcher weapon with the only difference being that it's launched from another location.

All in all you're looking at a mechanism that would greatly increase the gameplay and give players more choices in the battlefield which is important.

[Hipshot]

Free2play + a solotool artillery is a terrible idea.
If they are going to make a artillery don't make it a solo tool.
It must require a lazer designator(no blind fire at all)
Blind fire in PS1 was most effective with a alternate character on the opposing team, you could just alt tab to your second account and watch where the shots landed wich just led to a verry lame gameplay.
Therefor artillery should always require a lazerdesignator.
Optional: Make the artillery hold only a few shots and make it require a supply line that feeds it ammo maby a ANT

[Sirisian]

Free2play + a solotool artillery is a terrible idea.
If they are going to make a artillery don't make it a solo tool.
It must require a lazer designator(no blind fire at all)
Blind fire in PS1 was most effective with a alternate character on the opposing team, you could just alt tab to your second account and watch where the shots landed wich just led to a verry lame gameplay.
Therefor artillery should always require a lazerdesignator.
Optional: Make the artillery hold only a few shots and make it require a supply line that feeds it ammo maby a ANT
That's why it's important to remove the person from the vehicle. They pull it and deploy it then they/their squad can use it after that point. The laser really keeps that line of sight which was the problem with the flail. As others mentioned you had to go all the way to the flail to stop it while with a laser version you need only kill the person marking targets akin to killing a person who is using a rocket launcher to shoot at stationary targets.

[SKYeXile]

I think those changes I made to what you said work for most infantry types in the game. Basically what the changes are reflecting is that players are always going to feel the threat of different vehicles in the game that they aren't necessarily going to defend themselves against if they aren't well equipped. However, with the option of allowing artillery to be shot out of the air this allows for a defense as you mentioned. The offense is killing the person lasing target or killing the vehicle itself. Two different ways. Infiltrators could use explosives on such targets.

If artillery is seen as a player's vehicle then that player pulls the vehicle and sets it up. The player then puts themselves in harms to target a location allowing an enemy to attack. The artillery then is very similar to launching a dumb-fire rocket launcher weapon with the only difference being that it's launched from another location.

All in all you're looking at a mechanism that would greatly increase the gameplay and give players more choices in the battlefield which is important.

That is one way it could work, been able to shoot the missile or by been able to kill the laser designator and in turn disabling any in-flight rockets.

[Raka Maru]

Fine Hamma.

Have you played world of tanks and been driving along attempting to have fun when you get one shot by arty that you can't see and therefore couldn't counter due to the fact you didn't know it was coming as you cannot guess an arties placement and, of course, you can't see it coming.

That is the kind of indirect yet powerful gameplay style that feels cheap. That player puts in little effort for a big gain with very little thought put into the process. Artillery in RTS games is a powerful destructive tool that is always an expensive earned power, not something you can just pull and use.

I would personally be for removing it all together but if its in the game it needs to have some heavy restrictions placed upon it purely for the reason that its cheap and has a lot of power. There is also no counter that, in heavy fighting, will make it to said flail to kill it without a lot of effort. Recalling and doing an os to kill one tank is not a good counter.

In WoT you got hit by arty because someone on the other team can see you. Shells are not unlimited so they are not gonna spam random areas.

Arty should be just as easy to acquire as grunt, sniper, or tank. That's what PS is all about, no elite veterans ruling everything. I like how the did it in WoT.

[Tamas]

In WoT you got hit by arty because someone on the other team can see you. Shells are not unlimited so they are not gonna spam random areas.

Arty should be just as easy to acquire as grunt, sniper, or tank. That's what PS is all about, no elite veterans ruling everything. I like how the did it in WoT.

Except for matches with 8 arty per side. You couldn't move without getting instant killed... I'm fine if arty is same as WoT that means with tracers that anyone can see - flying in light air vehicle, see tracer, go get the free kill - unless arty has friends guarding it.

[SKYeXile]

You people are making me play some WOT, gonna outplay some fools on my non overpowered russian tank.

[SKYeXile]

You people are making me play some WOT, gonna outplay some fools on my non overpowered russian tank.

maintenance, SON OF A (&^%*&$

[Shade Millith]

Except for matches with 8 arty per side. You couldn't move without getting instant killed... I'm fine if arty is same as WoT that means with tracers that anyone can see - flying in light air vehicle, see tracer, go get the free kill - unless arty has friends guarding it.

You get instakilled, because the artillery in WoT is designed to be fired at moving vehicles with some chance of hitting.

Imagine playing Artillery in WoT's that takes 10-20 seconds for the shell to reach the target, and you can't see what you're shooting at.

[Tamas]

maintenance, SON OF A (&^%*&$

Roll French heavy line. Until you get to T8 its pure OMGRAGE. D, B1, RGB, ARL, first AMX...

[Graywolves]

Playing an SPG in WoT is such an aweful grind.

[Raka Maru]

Except for matches with 8 arty per side. You couldn't move without getting instant killed... I'm fine if arty is same as WoT that means with tracers that anyone can see - flying in light air vehicle, see tracer, go get the free kill - unless arty has friends guarding it.

Dedicated arty teams should be a common thing if is is done right. Gotta protect those big fragile guns. They would alway try to find/take me out by sending fast scout to hunt me down. When guarded by tank destroyers, it then becomes the war zone. There was nothing boring about that.

Single arty didn't last long. Arty team made the hot zone.

[Tehroth]

It would be nice if recon could report back with coords of an approaching army and then the artillery could demolish the impending army. It would make both play styles more useful.

[Rumblepit]

said it in the other thread, you have a better chance of seeing Elvis in a BFR .
flials wont be in ps2.

why???? number... sheer numbers.

have any of you that want flials in the game taken time to think about how they will be destroyed?????

well ill tell ya this your not just gonna fly a mile behind enemy lines in your reaver and blow it up.

no , there is gonna be atleast 300 people between you in that flial. armor, air, aa, av, maxes......

i can see it now, flial meta gameplay in ps2." guys we need 3 platoons to punch a hole in the front line to clear way for the other 2 platoons going for the flial" roflmao

i really dont think people grasp the scale of the combat that we are gonna see.


I agree with the devs.... no flials

[Graywolves]

said it in the other thread, you have a better chance of seeing Elvis in a BFR .
flials wont be in ps2.

number... sheer numbers.

have any of you that want flials in the game taken time to think how they will be destroyed?????

well ill tell ya this your not just gonna fly a mile behind enemy lines in your reaver and blow it up.

no , there is gonna be atleast 300 people between you in that flial. armor, air, aa, av, maxes......

i can see it now, flial meta gameplay in ps2." guys we need 3 platoons to punch a hole in the front line to clear way for the other 2 platoons going for the flial" roflmao

i really dont think people grasp the scale of the combat that we are gonna see.


That's funny because we took out flails all the time in PS1.

You're underestimating the scale of the world. You shouldn't be rushing the front line to take out something behind it. Sneak around.

[Rumblepit]

That's funny because we took out flails all the time in PS1.

You're underestimating the scale of the world. You shouldn't be rushing the front line to take out something behind it. Sneak around.

lmao ya in ps1 its easy....... 1000 vs 1000 . take sometime and think about these numbers .

[Graywolves]

lmao ya in ps1 its easy....... 1000 vs 1000 . take sometime and think about these numbers .

If something is scaled on every level it doesn't change.

[Sirisian]

flials wont be in ps2.

I don't think anyone is advocating for flails seriously. Read the thread. :confused:

[Rumblepit]

I don't think anyone is advocating for flails seriously. Read the thread. :confused:

66% of the people in this thread said yes to artillery/ flials..
:confused:

[Sirisian]

66% of the people in this thread said yes to artillery/ flials..
:confused:
To artillery, but if you read the threads you'll see a lot of the 66% are saying that flails are a broken concept and lead to spam.

[SKYeXile]

Roll French heavy line. Until you get to T8 its pure OMGRAGE. D, B1, RGB, ARL, first AMX...

im not really about French, i have a E50, T54 and E75, along with some other nasties. i really only play the E50 though (http://worldoftanks.com/uc/accounts/1000959258-SKYeXile/) i like mediums alot more than heavies. think i might grab an IS4 before the Russian update though since it apparently turns into a T10 after the patch...if its not already...

[Shade Millith]

66% of the people in this thread said yes to artillery/ flials..
:confused:

Incredibly (But shocking absolutely no one), I have to post a correction again for the... fifth time I think?

A Prowler may be a MBT, but when someone says MBT, it could mean Vangurad or Magrider, or the Abrams from BF3, or the A8 Tiger from BF2142, or the KV-5 from WoT's. Each and every one is a MBT, but none of them are the same.
When someone say's they want a MBT doesn't mean they want a Prowler.

A BFR may be a Mech, but when someone says Mech, it could mean an Armored Core (AC) from the Armored Core game series, or the L-5 Riesig from BF2142. Each and every one is a Mech, but none of them are the same.
When someone say's they want a Mech doesn't mean they want a BFR.

A Flail may be Artillery, but when someone says Artillery, it could mean a Howitzer from Desert Combat, or the Sonic Artillery from Command and Conquer, or the BM-13N Katyusha from Battlefield 1942. Each and every one is Artillery, but none of them are the same.
When someone say's they want Artillery doesn't mean they want a Flail.

[Rumblepit]

Incredibly (But shocking absolutely no one), I have to post a correction again for the... fifth time I think?

A Prowler may be a MBT, but when someone says MBT, it could mean Vangurad or Magrider, or the Abrams from BF3, or the A8 Tiger from BF2142, or the KV-5 from WoT's. Each and every one is a MBT, but none of them are the same.
When someone say's they want a MBT doesn't mean they want a Prowler.

A BFR may be a Mech, but when someone says Mech, it could mean an Armored Core (AC) from the Armored Core game series, or the L-5 Riesig from BF2142. Each and every one is a Mech, but none of them are the same.
When someone say's they want a Mech doesn't mean they want a BFR.

A Flail may be Artillery, but when someone says Artillery, it could mean a Howitzer from Desert Combat, or the Sonic Artillery from Command and Conquer, or the BM-13N Katyusha from Battlefield 1942. Each and every one is Artillery, but none of them are the same.
When someone say's they want Artillery doesn't mean they want a Flail.

your looking for a long ranged weapon that dose aoe damage? flial,artillery, howitzer,sonic.just about anything that can osok 20 to 30 people at a time right?????

yea they wont work in ps2. im sure there was much forethought into the combat aspects of artillery from ps1 in ps2.they made the right move to keep it out.many things have to be factored in when you want to implement something like this.im sure they went over pros and cons, and from the looks of things there were more cons.

[Sirisian]

your looking for a long ranged weapon that dose aoe damage? flial,artillery, howitzer,sonic.just about anything that can osok 20 to 30 people at a time right?????
I'm not really looking for AOE damage from artillery. Something with a precision hit would be preferable for tactical reasons (taking out deployables, stationary/linearly moving tank columns, sitting galaxies/sunderers/planes, etc).

So not an infantry weapon per say. Ideally like I said before it could damage enemy infantry, but they'd see it probably in the air or on radar and move for instance if a cloaker is targeting people on a wall after they destroyed the AA turrets.

However, if you had a few people with artillery and they were all calling in strikes with lasers in the same area you might see some interesting stuff depending on the reload times.